Jennifer+Armstrong

I debated 4 years in high school for Pace Academy and have debated for Dartmouth. I judged some at camp, but know relatively little about the High school topic

I will try to vote on arguments that teams convince me are important.

I think teams should be flow-able, if I miss an argument or arguments aren't clearly flagged than i will grant the other team a lot of leeway.

__**Kritics**__- The kritic needs to make a coherent story for me to vote on it. I think the way teams frame kritics is very important (this is different than framework). I am not very familiar with a lot of K literature so chances are you will have to explain it, but I have voted for the K atleast as many times as I have voted against it.

__**Theory-**__ I actually like theory debates, but teams should slow down and explain their arguments well.

Just becuase I have read a type of cp in the past, does not mean i think it is legitimate. I tend to think Condo is good Pics too Consult/Condition-I think they are competitive but probably not legitimate States/ international fiat probably arent good- but i can definetally be convinced otherwise

I probably think that it is the negs burden to prove that the affirmatives interpretation of debate is bad, not just that the their interpretation is better. There should probably be a balance between limits and aff predictability.
 * __Topicality-__**

I will vote on zero risk of a disad- but its probably hard to win that an argument has zero risk.
 * __offense defense-__**

I think most judges tend to grant da's more risks of links than risks of solvency deficits and I will try not to do this.

__**evidence**__ logical arguments make sense and should be made early in the debate. You dont need evidence to prove an argument is bad. Reading the un-underlined part of the other teams evidence is often very helpful. Cx is a great time to focus on big flaws in the other teams main arguments.