Patterson,+Art

Non-Affiliated

Former Debater w/ time to volunteer I like judging:

Public Forum Congress

Policy Debate

The negative should prove that the plan is undesirable by way of a competitive and preferably specific counterplan, or the status quo. The 2nr and 2ar should reinforce important arguments, do impact calculus that clarifies the global vision of what I’m voting for, and win the debate on the flow. Speaker Points

My criteria: Intellectual arguments, speaking clearly, a decent vocabulary, a productive CX and organized rebuttals. I don’t care about niceties, but I do regard respectfulness. You can be arrogant and unrelenting to your opponent all you want, it won’t count against you, however doing so doesn’t make you better than them and should turn off when the round is over.

Framework Be a policy maker and read a plan.

Counter Plans I like uniqueness and I like evidence… I need you to have offensive net-benefits.

Disads Strong Link over Strong Impact

K  I don’t like kritik runs, but I won’t penalize you for it… I might lose some of your arguments though.

Topicality Competing interpretations can be fun, make sure standards are well impacted. (Pretty generic)

Theory Be reasonable, don’t abuse. Strict with the standards.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Miscellaneous <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">If your timing the round don’t be finicky and do it right. I don’t time rounds.