Hanratty,Peter

Affiliation: Oakton High School Experience: 0 Years of Policy Debate Judging: 3 Years (Policy)

Background; I have no experience as an actual debater but I have been judging debate for the past 3 years. I am an engineer by trade so by nature I like things that are logical and analytics are important. You need to convince me not only that your argument is good but that you understand what your are arguing. So providing not only data but analysis of the data is desired. I like arguments to be clearly identified / roadmapped and it is beneficial to me that the debaters clearly define which of their arguments are important and the weaknesses of the other teams arguments - i.e. why should you win.

I am open to all forms of debate but understand my previously mentioned biases.

I have a high bar on Topicality arguments. So if you run it recognize that you should believe it really is valid T and spend the effort to convince me too.

I have heard and understand a number of kritiks but if you run one it is to your advantage to not assume I understand all nuances. Again, you need to show that you understand the K by making me understand the K.

While I have often voted for Ks, I prefer to hear a policy round- a case/disad debates and CP debates

Speed is not an issue with me but you must be clear (don't slur words). If I cant understand you, I cant follow your argument. Especially make sure that your tags are clear and that transitions between arguments are clear -avoid jumping around the flow. I typcially don't like to read evidence so make sure you flush out the warrants and analysis in your evidence for me.