Eames,Josh

I debated 3 yrs in high school and 3 yrs in college (CEU and Weber St), I've coached several high school teams, and have 8 yrs of judging experience. I believe that my primary responsibility as a critic is to render a decision based on what the debaters claim in the round. I tend to be a very flow oriented judge, who will listen to any argument (I don't find "oppression good" type arguments very persuasive, if you run sexism good-you'll lose my ballot). I'll look foe the easy way out and will only make args myself if I feel there is no other way out. Also keep in mind that I'm not currently coaching and hence have done no reading what-so-ever on this topic. I'd love to hear some team impact gorillas (they're susceptible to humyn diseases). I'm out get Bingham (UT) teams!

T-I love T debates, I don't find the "competing interpretations" arg very persuasive, I think it's an attempt to cop-out of voters. I'd advise both teams to focus on all parts of a T arg (def, standards, vio, and voters) you can take out a T arg at any of these points. It always better for the AFF to have contextual definitions(particularly on this topic) and the neg should be as specific as possible with their violations. Ground is the most important voter for me.

DA- Crucial to negative strategy, don't forget to think about the Unq of the impacts as well as the Link, and while I always advise Affs to go for offense, I will vote on defense. be clear explaining your politics links, especially the more you run

C/P-The negs most strategic arg-I tend to lean neg on dispo and I love PIC's. One pet peeve is how you label your theory args- If the neg runs an Alt Agent and you claims PIC's bad, the neg only has to say they are not a PIC-if this is unclear, ask me. Your best bet on the aff is to debate the net benefits of the c/p vs. the plan and/or perm. I'll buy the "vote against the arg not the team" on theory debates.

K-my weak point- I've voted for K's plenty of times but I'll admit that I don't understand them as quickly as other args, maybe it's me or maybe debaters just don't explain their K's well? I think K's have to have alternatives (usually more than "deconstruction or rethinking- you need to convince me of an actual, workable alt.

Performance- also a weakness- I just need a good explanation as to why I should vote for your performance, but overall I'm not a fan of them.

Cheap shots- I'll vote for them as long as they're within reason (i.e. aff no linking your politics disad is not a voter in and of itself-show abuse).

Any questions- don't be afraid to ask.