Ewing,+Jack

Topicality - I think that teams should always have evidence to support there interpretation and that is not just limited to a definition. I generally default to competiting interpritations however I can be convinced to see the debate differently.

Framework - I have not yet been involved in a debate where I have seen a compelling framework argument that has convinced me that what the aff or neg did was so unfair that the debate was impossible for someone to win and I generally don't think that it is a voting issue. However I do think that the aff gets to weigh their advantages vs. the critique.

Theory - I generally err neg on theory. If you are going for theory in front of me i think it is best that you slow down and dont just spew blocks as fast as you can. I think that teams are to focused on little technical drops rather than winning an interpretation and why it is fair in terms of the debate at hand. Make sure you impact theory arguments well and make comparisons to the other teams most important standards -

Kritiks - I am in general very well read in the critical area that you are talking about. This does not mean that I prefer these arguments but just that I am more familiar with the literature. If you are going for the kritik please make sure you have a well developed alternative or if you don't have one explain why its not necessary. Don't just expect because I could interpret the 150 critical catch phrases that you through out that I will construct a coherent argument out of them. I think that when youre neg and going for the criticism it is necessary for you to do specific impact and link work about the plan itself or the advantages (dont just read generic links, if you do make sure you atleast have specific applications of those more generic link arguments)

CPs - SLOW DOWN IN THE 1NC WHEN READING THE CP TEXT. I love case specific pics. Not the biggest fan of consult and generic process counterplans. I think that Aff's need to write out the permutations that they make to ensure that they do not shift throughout the debate.

I like when teams have offense and defense however I do not require offense like some judges, I do believe there can be zero risk. Be clear and smart and you will be rewarded. Have FUN. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me.