Buniel,+Quinn

I do my best to judge rounds from the perspective presented by the debaters. I have voted for just about every kind of argument imaginable. I believe I have an obligation to work as hard at judging as the debaters do preparing for the debates. I will read evidence. I do expect debaters to be comprehensible and I have no qualms about telling you if I can’t understand you. I try my best to resolve a debate based on what the debaters have said in their speeches. I try not to impose my own perspective on a debate. Any argument, assumption, or theory is potentially in play. The purpose of my ballot is to say who I think won the debate not to express my personal opinion on an issue or to stimulate social transformation. That said I do have some preferences. While I have voted for affirmatives that are not tied to the resolution I believe that the resolution should play a central role in debates and that the affirmative should defend a topical example of the resolution. I do not generally believe that topicality is the first step to genocide. I do not think that people go for topicality enough. I believe that it is a real argument and the fact that negatives fill their speech time with other arguments has nothing to do with whether or not topicality is a voting issue. Running a case all year does not make it any more topical at the end of the year then it was at the beginning. While I will vote for theory arguments they are not my favorite voting issue. I am a fan of tight strategies. I love a good counterplan. I am a fan of pics. I believe the negative needs to win a substantial risk of a net benefit. You need to actually win a plausible link not just say there is a 1% risk of a link. I am willing to say there is no link. I am also willing to say that an aff has no solvency. I like critical arguments which challenge explicit choices made by the opposition. The fact that an argument is called a K does not automatically make it a voting issue. Impacts to criticisms are important debates that don’t happen often enough. Wrong forum/framework arguments make little sense to me. The idea that ethics/values/ontology are inappropriate in a policy framework is a position that puzzles me. On the other hand claims that consequences to embracing a particular ethic are irrelevant leave me equally puzzled. I believe the quality of evidence is important. I like debates to be pleasant experiences for competitors and audience alike. Do not be a jerk to your opponent or your partner. I like smart arguments that are part of the specific debate rather than a rehashing of the same speech you have done in every round. I think debate should be fun. Humor is greatly appreciated. If a team is dishonest in pre round disclosure I would be willing to make it a voting issue.