Stubbs,+Andy

My background is in policy, but I've worked with teams and judged in both LD and PF over the last several years.

I'm a tab judge. I'm not predisposed towards one type of argument over another. I don't like to tell debaters which types of arguments "belong" in an LD round and which don't. Also, the framework debate is really important, as it lets me know which impacts access the ballot best. I try to avoid defaulting to one side or the other on questions of theory, which makes it all the more important you have clear interpretations and reasons to prefer on the theory debate. In terms of presentation, clarity always outweighs speed, but if you're quick and clear, it's all good; if the rate of delivery becomes an issue, I'll let you know. I like kritiks and I'm familiar with a decent amount of the literature, however that doesn't get you out of having to explain and extend the warrants in the cards. I'm familiar with the lit of most disads and I still require clear extensions of the storyline and warranted claims, so the K isn't any different. Overall, I tend to view debate as an educational game, so arguments rooted in both education and competition resonate well on the T/theory debates. I don't mind assertive or aggressive styles, but don't be passive aggressive or outright rude, especially in cx. Overall, have fun, be nice, and debate it out.