Skoog,+Joe

I debated at Brophy College Prep and now debate for Gonzaga University.

Everything under this are my defaults but obviously any argument that is contrary to any of these override my presuppositions. I'll try not to intervene to the best of my ability

Tech over truth I'll call for ev, but only if it is a key part of the debate or I have been told to look at it. I put a lot of stock into the quality of evidence when deciding debates. Logical arguments are better than bad cards. I default to reject the arg for everything except conditionality unless told otherwise. Awesome strategic moves will be rewarded. For the love of  don't cheat. I'm really expressive when I judge, but it doesn't mean I hate your argument, I'm just thinking to myself. Prep ends when the flash is out of the computer
 * The Highlights:**


 * Specifics:**

Read warrants please. I will reward fantastic ev. Quality outweighs quantity. Use spin and compare your evidence to theirs.
 * Evidence:**

I do tend to default to less change and think that there is such thing as zero risk of the aff. Using very smart case defense arguments is awesome. Internal link defense and solvency arguments are, in my opinion, underused. That makes me sad. So please use them.
 * Case/Impact Defense:**

I'm a huge theory nerd so I'm down with being convinced something is competitive. HOWEVER, I do think that a lot of counterplans that are commonly run are not competitive. Granted, I ran Reg Neg and Consult Russia a lot, and I understand why they are necessary sometimes, but I will reward case specific counterplans with net benefits that justify the status quo. To be clear: **Artificial net benefits be dumb, yo.** Counterplans should have solvency advocates--preferably normative one--which will go a long way in defending the theoretical legitimacy of the advocacy.
 * Counterplans:**

Against big stick affs, don't read stupid PICs like "the" or "should" because then I will cry. And I am an ugly crier.

I won't kick a conditional CP in the 2NR unless I'm explicitly told to in the debate.

For politics, gotta have the goods evidence-wise. Political capital key cards should say that political capital is key. I think that an aff shooting apart the internal link chain of a stupid scenario is sufficient. I would really like it if your DA was an actual opportunity cost to the plan. Link controls direction of uniqueness.
 * Disads:**

I exclusively went for the K my senior year, so I know a lot of the literature. I've read a lot of Foucault and Baudrillard but I won't pretend I know all K authors equally. Please explain it in relation to the aff, not just in high theory terms. I don't think I'm the federal government. I am a sleepy college student judging a debate. However, I can be persuaded differently by args made in the debate. Getting to weigh the aff is distinct from a "role of the ballot" argument because Role of the ballot determines how/what I am voting on or evaluating. I love highly technical K debate ie. LINE BY LINE and clash. Well researched and case specific Ks will make me smile.
 * Kritiks:**

I really do enjoy theory debates if it is delivered at a rate consistent with the arguments. For example, if you are saying conditionality is bad in the 1AR don't speed through it because it is difficult to flow in its entirety. I will vote on unconditionality good, or 5 conditional CPs good. Debate is debate. If a theory violation is well impacted and explained, I will vote on it.
 * Theory:**

I default to competing interpretations unless told to evaluate it differently. I love when people read a lot of cards on tea, or have a hyper specific topicality argument. I evaluate it like a DA, so impacting things such as limits and ground is important.
 * Topicality:**

I'm down to listen to really anything, and I was usually on the side of the team answering framework for most of my career. That being said, I really really enjoy framework debates. I think that "no Ks" isn't very convincing, but there should probably some agreed upon stasis point. This doesn't mean you need to defend the hypothetical implementation of plan in front of me, but if the other team wins that fiat is a good model of education, I will vote on it.
 * Framework vs K affs**:

I like these kinds of debates. I do enjoy performances if they make specific arguments and are debated well. I'll flow you the best I can.
 * Performance:**