Rosenberg,+Eric

Eric Rosenberg

-I debated NDT/CEDA (policy) for Columbia University. In high school, I primarily debated in the JSA format.

-I am not the most comfortable with speed. I would prefer that you speak at about 60-70% of what you usually do in front of other judges (I will yell clear or slower). I will maintain a good flow.

-My favorite strategy would involve a CP, a Disad, and Case arguments. I am very involved in politics, so I will enjoy the politics disad. I will also enjoy hearing topic specific disads, since I like reading about space exploration (but do not assume that I know your scenario/acronyms before the debate). My favorite CP strategies are advantage CPs or agent CPs. I will listen to counterplans that are artificially competitive like consult or conditions, but will be amenable to theory concerns and the perm.

-If your bread and butter is the K, I am probably not the best judge for you. As a political science and economics major, I do have a theoretical understanding of basic assumptions made by the security K (and other constructivist spin-offs) and the cap K. However, I will be easily persuaded by pleas to pragmatism and teams that race to the middle.

-I am unlikely to vote on T or theory unless the team reading it can point to actual abuse in the round. If you plan on going for either of these arguments, do not breeze through your blocks and take care to slow down and explain the argument so I can get ink on my flow.

-You will lose significant speaker points if you make stupid arguments, such as: Lizard people, e-prime, the "should" PIC, one-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict good, Zionism is racism, consult Ashtar.