Rekow,+David

School I attended: Jesuit HS Schools I judge for: Woodland HS, Harker, McClatchy Number of rounds on this year's topic: ~20

I default to offense/defense, but I think that part of any debate round should be both teams negotiating ground and the rules of the game; this means I can be easily persuaded to adopt another calculus as long as you 1. Provide a reason why it's good, and 2. Tell me, in clear and realistic terms (i.e. in terms of my ballot), how I make a decision in your framework.

Specific arguments:

Topicality - I will vote for T if you give me three things: a clear interpretation of the resolution; the reasons why your interp is better than any other ; an explanation of why T in this particular instance is a voting issue. Answering T - you should provide a competing interpretation of the resolution and not only defend why yours is better, but why yours is better in relation to the negative's; this involves making comparisons between the type and quality of ground or limits you each provide. Reasonability is not incredibly persuasive but I will buy it if you explain why it's necessary.

Theory - I love good theory debates, emphasis on GOOD. Theory should be high-clash and well-explained; this means doing more than reading huge blocks on condo bad/good. I would much prefer to hear 4 warranted reasons than 11 blips. If theory is in the last two rebuttals it should be greatly expanded upon, with specific arguments regarding the impact in the current round or on future rounds, as well as comparisons between yours and your opponent's args.

Kritiks - I like them, I run them. I have a fairly high level of expectation for them, however. I will not vote for your ability to read 5-syllable, million dollar words. I WILL vote for your ability to clearly explain your argument and why it is germane, the impact of the argument, and how I should evaluate it (especially in the context of the round - how does your argument interact with others?). I am moderately versed in critical literature, but will not fill in using my own knowledge; if you can't explain it, you probably shouldn't be running it. I think a crucial part of any critical argument is establishing a framework - see above. When answering a kritik, the best way to convince me is a permutation, as well as a clear picture of what the world of the permutation looks like and how it functions.

Counterplans/DA - these are some of my favorite debates. I enjoy tight, specific CP strategies - like PICing out of a plank of plan and straight turning it. I tend to believe that conditionality is okay, but as I've said before it's up to you all to tell me what the rules are. I look for clear explanations of the counterplan mechanism in the 2NR - how you solve the net benefit, and if you're claiming to solve for case you MUST tell me HOW. Perms, again, are a must from the affirmative, as well as solvency deficits for case - chances are pretty good you can solve your harms better, but you need to make that argument! Answering disads, I look for solid offense on the link/impact - without it, the negative has a much greater chance of winning their "try or die" claims. Also, USE YOUR CASE - there's a reason you read it!

Impact calculus - is an absolute MUST in the rebuttals but should really start happening in the 2AC/2NC. I look for two things: impact warrants, and more importantly comparison between yours and your opponents. In-depth analysis not only of the magnitude-probability-timeframe debate, but how each of those facets interact (if the magnitude is huge, should I not care about how likely it is? If it's systemic, does that mean I shouldn't care about the magnitude?), will make both of our lives easier.

Speed - on a scale of one to ten, I'm probably a nine. If you're unintelligible, however, I will let you know. I above all value clarity - taglines/cites, topicality and theory debates should be spread at about 80% speed, and you can then go to town on the cards.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: tell me how to vote. I don't want to think at the end of these rounds. The more clearly you tell me exactly why and how I'm voting for you, the more likely you are to win (and the higher your speaks, probably).

Ask me questions.