Emenuga,+David

School: Newark Tech High School

Judge Preferences: I am more of a traditional policy debater. I will listen to any arguments that are read due to the debater's own selection. Debating K's is not one of my greater subjects but outside of kritiks i can argue or be willing to listen to it. I usually prefer to hear arguments such as, Topicality, Counter plans, DA's, or Framework. I view topicality as the most important thing in the round. If the affirmative drops topicality, i will vote negative if the negative picks up on it. Kritiks i will hardly ever vote on unless the negative can make it extremely clear to me what the K is about and how does the Aff links to it.

Speaking: I prefer for debater to speak as clear as possible and to not slur words. If the debater wants to spread, i'm fine with that just make sure i can understand you.

Topicality: This is the biggest argument to win me over. I would like to hear the link, standards, impact, and voters of the topicality violation through out the round.

Disadvantages: I would like to hear a lot of impact calc - probability, magnitude, and timeframe. Also explain how the aff links to the DA. If the Aff doesn't link, i will vote the DA down.

CP: Explain to me how the cp is much better than the aff, and how it is competitive to the aff.

Framework: I'm not that big on framework but explain to me how the aff violates your interpretation, and why should i vote for you on framework.

Aff: be sure to make the aff seem desirable for me in which i would want to vote for it. Make sure you explain why the aff is the best option for me to vote on and how the aff might solve for off cases.