Leis,+Skye

__**Policy Debate:**__

I maintain that the role of the judge is a blank slate that must be brought to vote for the aff, or the neg. As such, I enjoy hearing the occasional "Irony" aff, as well as any obscure K or CP. However, especially in the case of obscure arguments, it is extremely necessary for the teams to tell me why I would care, and why it matters in or out of round. Personally I believe that for AFF teams, they must prove that they are better than the status-quo in some way, and that the case is actually important. You need to convince me that your plan is important for improving the future. For the NEG, I need to be convinced that the aff is going to make things worse than the status quo, or that you have a better idea that is superior to the aff.

Topicality: I think being topical is important, however, in most cases I will not vote on topicality unless you can show me that they are so untopical that they can't bear any argument. I also tend to especially dislike when multiple T's are run, mostly in the case of just running an argument to distract them. I can vote on T, but its fairly low on my voting priority.

Framework: Probably one of the most important arguments for me, FW will generally decide whether I vote on the K, CP, Aff, or what ever is run. If for any reason no FW is run, I vote on impacts, however, a good FW is what can win the round. Good FW debate pairs well with strats that teams run, and should be considered before running it (for example, don't run policy-making with a K, which i have seen, and tends to screw the team over).

Kritiks: For a K to be successful, I need to have a strong link, and good impacts, and generally a paired FW to give me reason to vote on the impacts, or K. I am willing to hear any form of K, obscure or not, as long as I am convinced it matters.

Theory: I have a love/hate relationship with theory. One of my least liked aspects of policy is when the debate becomes a round of whining that the other team is mean. However I will vote on Theory, especially when the team it is being run on is being unprofessional. I prefer not to deal with theory, however, I will vote on it if run well, and won't dock teams for running it.

Basically I will vote on anything and everything run, as long as the team running it can prove to me that it matters, and matters more than what the opponents bring up.