Katerberg,+Mark

I don't judge all that much. But I do debate for the University so while the topic is probably going to be unfamilar, the arguments are not. I vote for whoever wins. Aff side bias is bullshit.

Long-ass paradigms about specific arguments and predispositions are pretty dumb. Run whatever you want. Unless you run really offensive arguments (I mean things like racism good, not like Objectivism), I won't hurt your speaks. Run anything you think will let you win. Seriously. I flow as well as I need to, if you're reasonably clear. I get tags and dates. If you don't, I can usually get tags anyway.

But really, debate what you're good at, and just impact your arguments. Honestly, any argument is only as good as whoever is arguing it. You can run anything you want as long as you give reasons why.

__**Topicality**__ I view T like a disad unless you tell me not to do so. Neg teams should use their standards as links to their voters. You win the standards, which are the links, and you have to explain your impacts, the voters, in terms of that. I default to viewing T under competing interpretations, I don't really care about in round abuse vs. potential abuse, it's all about the interpretation.You need to impact your claims. It's because of this that I've never heard a compelling reason why "Brightline" matters. I generally feel like Limits is the best standard, and provides the best internal into all other impacts on the T debate. That said there's still a debate to be had on whether Ground or Predictability or even Grammar is a better standard to access the impacts. I view T under competing interpretations unless one team explains and wins that I should view T in a different way. Because I view T this way, I don't really need specific abuse on the flow to vote. You just need to win that the Aff's interpretation is bad, and impact that in a reason to vote. This also means the Aff can win by simply winning, even if their interpretation is bad, that the Neg interpretation might be worse, or just as bad. All of this is well and good, but if someone tells me to think differently that what is written here, I'll be more than willing to listen.

__**Kritiks**__ I'm good with them - I've debated most, I go for them a lot (more than I should), I understand them well enough. I also have read at least a bit on most kritiks that are run, so really, do whatever. The one thing I do have to say on K debates is that the alt doesn't get debated enough. That's mostly the fault of the Aff.

__**Theory**__ Probably less open to it then most judges - just impact your arguments. I mentioned side-bias above - one of the reasons there is no longer any Aff side bias is because of the various things the Neg gets to do in "conventional debate theory". If you're actually making good analysis, side-bias arguments can hold weight.

__**Performance**__ If you wanna do it, then do it well. I have no problem listening to it and usually enjoy these rounds at least as well as other rounds.

This philosophy is stolen from Rohan Sadagopal with his permission. It's been modified to be "right".