Alan,+Naomi


 * History**: I have competed in policy debate for 3 years of high school and have now been judging it for 4 years. I am familiar with a lot of the non-topic-specific arguments.
 * Setup**: I am fine with speed, I don't mind tag-team cross-examination as long as both sides are fine with it.

Feel free to ask me any questions you have about my judging philosophy; preferably before the round begins!
 * I tend to be critical of the links because they tend to be the weakest and yet most overlooked in an argument. I've found this is especially true of kritiks. I am fine with Kritik-Affs in case you were wondering.
 * Extending arguments is a big thing for me - if it's going to be in your final speech, it better be in the speech before it (otherwise I give weight to the other team that points out it was a 'dropped' argument and how it would be abusive to bring it back when they prepped assuming it would stay that way).
 * I //love// impact calculus - compare the arguments' vital points and just tell me why you win in your own words.
 * I've been told ASpec is a dumb argument and yet I've won on it several times in my day, so in my mind there is NO such thing as a dumb argument as long as it is reasonable (as in the case of analytical aspec arguments) and/or it is well-evidenced. (or in some cases, dropped completely)