Victor,+Sarah

Debate Background: I was a policy debater at Nicolet High School (Wisconsin) from 2000-2004. Much of that was on the national circuit, and we were coached by Bill Batterman during my senior year (2003-2004). That year, my partner and I also qualified for the TOC. I debated briefly (policy and APDA parliamentary) in college at Stanford University, but have been out of the activity for several years.

General Philosophy: I'm relatively agnostic in terms of judging preferences - whatever you're arguing, you need to be comfortable with the warrants behind your arguments and be able to spin a coherent story about what my vote means, for you, for the activity, or for the theoretical policy world. Much of my background is from a more policy perspective (CPs and disads), but I also frequently cut/ran critical arguments, so I'm fine following those debates. I'm probably least familiar with the performative aspects of debate, as that seems to have dramatically increased in prevalence in the activity since I left. In all instances, I will listen to the text of the cards you are reading, not just the tags,

More specific information:

T and Theory - Because I am not a frequent judge on this topic, don't assume that because a case is predictable/commonly being run I'll default aff on T. I view T as a test of competing interpretations, and I don't think you have to prove abuse to win this argument. I do think that theory arguments need to be explicated and, if you're going to go for theory, be clear on the line-by-line and on explanations of the voters. I don't have any particular predispositions with regard to conditionality, dispo, etc.

CPs/DAs - Awesome. The fewer internal links and the more specific your cards, the better. Know the link and internal links stories - you should know what the political climate is like beyond the cards you're reading if you want to run politics. Be sure to spell out your impact story - I will listen to your cards, not just your tags. Impact analysis in the last few speeches is crucial.

Kritiks - I'm comfortable in this literature, particularly language-based critical arguments. BUT, I'm biased in thinking that many high school students are reading arguments taht they don't fundamentally understand. If you're into that literature and can explain what the cards you're reading are saying, go for it - I will vote on discursive and performance arguments as long as you explain why it matters. Tell me what my ballot means!

Overall Peeves: Don't steal prep time. Don't be an a$$hole. Make the line-by-line neat and clean for me. If something's conceded, focus your time there rather than wasting it on an argument you won't win. Be strategic!

Any other questions, just ask!