Warren,+Hayden


 * Hayden Warren**

in attempt to keep this short i will only describe things that i view are particularly different about my judging philosophy from debate norms and things that could have a large impact on your debating.

I like defense. like i really really like defense a lot. this comes up most on perms on counterplans. if the aff puts intelligent defense on the net benefit that makes the risk of it less than 1% i will likely vote on the perm even if the counterplan wins a lot of solvency. but my liking of defense is also true on case or really any place where there is an impact cause there is likely some good defense to knock it out.

T is an argument that i liked to go for when i was a debater. this does not meant that i will vote for it if you are bad at t. but it does mean that i will have more set biases on t and that i will reward what i consider good t debates. i default to competing interps this stems from the fact that i have rarely heard a persuasive explanation of reasonability. if you can provide a good explanation of reasonability you will likley be rewarded.

my biases on theory are that i think that 2 conditional advocacies are legit and that consult/condition are not legit. obvi i can be pushed away from my biases on theory if you are the better debater.

i generally agree with critical authors so that means that i will agree with the arguments behind k's but obvi that doesnt mean i will vote for the k out of the 1nc...but that should tell you that if you think that its a good idea to read patriarchy good in front of me i will hate you. you could win on that argument but i will hate you for making me vote on that and i will punish you in anyway i can.

oh also i like lulz. if you give me epic lulz i will be happy. and debate is a game where you control the rules so do whatever you like and enjoy yourself!