Dossett,+Will

Hi.

I was a policy debater for four years in high school, and I've done some LD in college as well as coached Public Forum. I've judged all 3 of those kinds of debates. My viewpoint was shaped in policy, so I will evaluate things pretty technically, and I'm fine with speed.

I don't like Kritiks, but I have voted for them before. Commons sense arguments are just really effective against them. You just have to make things comprehensible, and not assume I know the jargon or whatever nonsense your author was on to when he wrote this stuff. I am totally down with Politics, CP's, PIC's, whatever, but as I said before, if you can technically out-debate the other person, I won't vote against you because I disagree with your argument.

I didn't like T when I did policy, but I'm more of a fan now. The important thing is that you explain why your violation matters, what's the impact, what does the world of debate look like after I vote for you. Otherwise I default aff.

There are some arguments that are so dumb that merely saying they are dumb counts as an answer. Among these are intrinsicness/rational policy maker, T is genocide, etc.

I will read cards if you tell me to, if I need to, or if it's very close. They are especially useful when both sides are making airy claims (like impact calc), or if they actually support your extrapolations.

Speaking of which, I default to body count on impact calc. If you've got a better way of framing impacts, bring it up and win that point, and we're golden.

I've heard some people say some stupid things in debate rounds. The worst is any variant of "so obviously you're gonna vote for me on that point." Don't ever say that. If you say something dumb, I will be annoyed, and will tell you so both verbally and in speaker points.

Sass is fine if you're right, but if you're just being mean to scare the other person, not good. I did this when I debated, and it doesn't pan out well.