Cowden,+Shawn

I have a full year of college policy debate experience, and I've judged a couple high school rounds. I'll vote on almost anything if it has a good argument behind it.

Ks - I'm a policy debater so I will probably default to that type of thinking/framework. Be sure to explain the alternative well so I understand what my ballot affirms. Impact calc is important because otherwise I'll think that extinction outweighs. A lot of K teams undercover the perm(s)- to win the K you should provide good reasons why the perm doesn't solve your impacts. If you're aff against a K you should have game on the question of alt solvency, the perm, turns to the K, framework (etc.)

CPs - For most CPs I'm not inherently biased when it comes to their theoretical legitimacy. I ran agent CPs a lot and also hit them a lot so I'm sympathetic to both sides. I'll vote on the CP with a risk of the DA if you go for it right, but I also think that presumption goes aff when it comes to CPs. What I mean is that if the plan solves 100% of case, and the CP claims to solve case even better, the aff probably will win.

DAs - They're good. I went for politics a lot last year. Make sure to do impact calc with the aff advantages, how the impact stories relate, etc. As the aff don't be afraid to make good analytics to dumb DAs.

T - I'll vote on it. If it's a close game of competing interpretations but the neg has game to play with a good, specific strat against the aff, I may be more likely to vote aff.

Condo - I tend to err negative unless there are 3+ conditional advocacies or there's a 2NC CP. Showing in round abuse is always good.

FW - If the aff doesn't read a plan text and defend fiat, FW is a very good strategy in front of me. "FW is genocide" args are not persuasive. This being said, a lot of teams don't know how to go for framework, so if youre going neg against a no-plan-text aff in front of me, dont think it's an auto win. Impact your arguments, tell me why fairness/predictability/education outweighs.