Garrett,+Clay

Many consider me as Tab, but I prefer not to be labeled as such. If I had to come as close to my ideology as possible, I'd say I'm a liberal policymaker. I'll listen to literally any argument, no matter how offensive or ridiculous (although these arguments would hurt your speaker points). I have no disdain for any arguments, and I will vote on each type equally under equal circumstances.

T- my least favorite argument. However, it is essential to policy debate. I usually default to competing interpretations rather than reasonability. If the Neg runs a T with a standard of ground and proceeds to run 3 Disads and a Counterplan, then they will have less weight on that standard (the others might be very strong, however). Generally, topicality is an uphill battle for the Aff. And I believe the Neg should have to work just as hard.

DA- uniqueness, link, internal link optional, impact. That should say it all. I love a good internal link story, as it shows the steps between your link and your ultimate impact. Just saying Obama loses political capital doesn't necessarily mean nuclear war is going to occur - tell me each domino that falls to hit the red button. As a policymaker, I love real-world scenarios, and an impact calculus is VERY necessary. I love a good disad if it is executed correctly.

CP- another good argument. It has recently grown rapidly, so I have slightly less experience with them. Nevertheless, do not be shy running one. Counterplans can be topical, I believe. It is only optional, but agent CPs, steal-the-funding CPs, and even Delay CPs are fine with me. Just explain exactly why the CP is better (net benefit) and how it is mutually exclusive. If Negs have case attacks and a Counterplan in the end of the 2NR, I may have a hard time deciding which is more important.... Not necessarily good for you.

K- same as Disads, make sure I get a good link and impact story. Tell me why your alternative solves, as well as how it is mutually exclusive. If a Kritik is not argued well, you will be docked speaks and I will decide how to evaluate your argument from there. I will not do the work for you (this goes for all other arguments as well). I want you to do it for me. If I have to, I will stretch to do some of your job, but this may not play out well for you. Generally, don't run a Kritik to be cool. Don't run one to be annoying. If you run one, you better be able to understand and defend your advocacy 100%.

Theory- I'm fine with all kinds, but don't spread it. All theory really is is sentences. Slow down for theory so I can get it all. It's not a tag line with a card in between. If I can't hear it, I can't flow it. And you don't want that.

Case- feel free to run whatever. Narratives and performance affs are fine, but don't just do them to do them. Just explain all your arguments and please please PLEASE tell me - what happens when the plan is passed? What goes down? That's all I need.

In general, I will listen to anything. CX is important, especially for speaks. I pay attention to it, so don't be angsty. Understand your arguments... It will help you. Speed is fine with me, so long as I can hear tag lines. Don't obnoxiously spread (get quiet after the first three seconds and breathe like a dying fish). That's not good speaking. Clean spreading I will accept. Conditional arguments are accepted, and even encouraged. Diversifying your arguments is a clever strategy. Other than that, I think everything is covered.