Endicott,+Neal

Endicott, Neal I am a policy-making judge. Debate is designed to emulate the way in which actual government policy is created. Impact calc, feasibility and analytics are very important to me in making my decision. To that end I will vote for the team that makes the most logical, real-world arguments. Here’s what I feel about particular arguments/ issues: DAs: as long as the DA links to the plan and not the resolution it’s fine. CPs: same as above. Show that the CP is better than the plan. I have no opinion about PICs so feel free to argue theory. Kritiks: politics related kritiks are fine as long as you understand what it is you’re saying and offer an alternative. Language based kritiks indicate that you find no flaw in the essence of the AFF plan. I will NOT vote on language-based kritiks unless the AFF makes no effort to respond to them. Topicality: I will vote on topicality if the AFF is egregiously untopical. Just don’t pin your whole case on it. Theory arguments: don’t waste the whole round arguing theory. Spend most of your time debating the case. That’s why we’re here. AFF plans: keep it in this world. Absurdity AFFs are (as the name implies) absurd. Don’t run them. EVER. Speed: go as fast as you want but make sure my pen is moving or I’m typing. Slow down for your big points to make sure I get them. If I miss it because you’re going too fast, it’s the same as me not hearing it at all.