Overby,+Anton

I am from Ruston, Louisiana and attend Louisiana Tech University. I debated for four years for Ruston High School. I have no judging experience for this topic, but I have been involved in debate every year after my high school career ended in 2006 as an assistant coach. My ears may be a little rusty, but I'll let you know on a need to know basis.

Topicality -- I like to think that topicality is your offense against some of those weirder cases involving critical approaches (no plan text, performance cases, etc.) In the past I have usually swung affirmative on topicality mainly because the negative rarely does a good enough job on the standard level. Clear, in-round examples of standards and how they apply to debate as a whole are a must for a win on topicality. Also, I'm not going to evaluate a topicality in the 2N if there is something else. If you're going to go for it, go for it.

Counterplans -- best policy option is the name of the game here. When theory comes into play, I'll vote on it like I vote on topicality (which is just another theory argument, eh?)

Critical Positions -- I am a firm believer that what makes debate so fun is the right to define your "space" in any terms you wish. I listen to anything you throw out there, but there must be justification. If someone tells me that your critique doesn't matter because they win the fiat good debate, so be it, you lose. However, I do not have any predispositions about any position, and I do not force people to justify a critique off the bat. Having said this, you should be ready to play the theory game here as well.

In fact, my view of critiques can apply for anything you throw at me as a judge. Tabula rosa, you know?