Ping,+Dustin

College Prep 2015 (4 years policy debate) Williams College 2019 (currently not debating) No experience judging on the surveillance topic (as of Harvard 2016)

My #1 rule is to be nice to each other. At the end of the day, debate is an activity that we do because we enjoy doing it. That being said, I appreciate a little attitude here and there when necessary, but please keep everything respectful. Humor is always appreciated. Also, I've been more or less removed from the activity for a few months so go 90% of your top speed in front of me.

Affs: I am down to vote for any aff as long as it is well-explained and gives me a reason to vote for them. I read affs with a plan in high school and mostly policy affs, so I may be less familiar with some of the philosophical terms of high theory affs, but again, as long as it is well-explained I will vote for it.

T: I don't know too much about the surveillance topic, so any acronyms/jargon need to be explained to me. Otherwise, I like a good T debate as long as the impacts/internal links are clear.

DA's: I love disad debates as this is what I mostly did in high school. Smart defensive arguments on the aff like strong internal link takeouts are very persuasive to me. I can be persuaded to vote on 0% risk of the DA but you have to explain to me why I should in the context of the debate. I like well thought-out impact/impact turn debates as well.

CP's: I love well-researched and well-executed aff-specific CP's. However, a generic CP that is well-executed and explained in the context of the aff is also great. I don't have any major biases when it comes to CP theory, but I might lean a little aff because I was a 2A in high school.

K's: I read some K's in high school but they were mostly generics like security or cap. However, I've been aff against a fair amount of K's so I'm familiar with most K's read in high school. For any K I need clear explanations in the context of the aff, and for high theory K's I'll probably need a little extra unpacking of philosophical terms/concepts.

Case: I love case debates. As a 2A I understood first-hand how devastating a solid case debate was. The more specific the better.

Theory: I haven't judged enough rounds for me to notice a bias on any theory argument, but in general I think they can get quite messy because of all the analytics. If you go for theory please remember to explain your impacts/internal links and go slower on the analytics. It's better for me to have 3 well-explained arguments on my flow than 10 incomplete ones.

If you have any questions please ask!