Mulholand,+Rob

I'm not strict about what I'll listen to or vote for. Generally, you would be well advised to make whatever arguments that you are best prepared to win the debate on, regardless of my philosophy. I don't think of myself as a "policy" or "K" judge, but do think that the framework can go either way depending on how the debate goes down. You choose, just make it worthwhile to listen to. That said, a couple of things. I do think that generally, the aff should defend something particular - if not a plan then at least a clear "reason I vote aff," which probably sounds intuitive except that I do think aff shiftyness sometimes seems to go too far. Pick something you can say is important in the 2ar, be clear about what that is with the other team from the outset. I think that most good neg arguments need to be competitive and defend a clear reason why their offense outweighs the aff, whether an alt, cp, or the squo. I'm pretty sympathetic to strong turns case arguments, and making arguments about probability versus time frame in your impact calc is often necessary. Anyway, my goal is just to reward the better debating - so prove that it's you doing so. Feel free to ask questions.