Marcovici,+Annabelle

I've been a 2A/1N since high school when I debated for Menlo-Atherton. I now debate for Whitman.

I evaluate the round in terms of offense/defense. I'll still vote on arguments outside this as paradigm long as you can coherently articulate why your interpretation of the round is best. Run what you understand. Resolve arguments so I don't have to.

__Theory and T__ Impact it, contextualize it, and do comparative impact work. I default to offense/defense on theory and to competing interps on T. I'll give full weight to dropped theory but that doesn’t automatically mean it wins my ballot because full weight of an unexplained or nonsensical argument probably won’t get you far. Condo and dispo are generally ok (who runs things dispo anymore though?). Consult is pretty shady. Having a solvency advocate for the CP makes my threshold for voting theory way higher. I hate spec but I guess I'll vote on it.

__Non-Squo Advocacies (AKA Counterplans)__ Ideally, competition should be textual and functional but functional competition matters more to me than textual.

__Kritiks__ Don’t throw a bunch of buzzwords at me and expect me to get what they mean. Contextualize, contextualize, contextualize. I need to know what it means in the specific context of the aff. The aff has the specificity of its case and scenarios on its side, so I’ll look favorably upon teams that capitalize on that in K debates. On the aff, it's much easier to win that framework means you get to weigh your aff than they don't get the K. Performance is okay, much better if it relates to the res. Fair warning that I find framework fairly persuasive against this type of argument.

__Other__ Please don't waste my and your opponents' time with dumb shit like timecube. There is such a thing as zero risk of an argument. Don't be overtly rude to your opponents but I do sometimes appreciate subtle, well-timed sass.