Feldman,+Jeremy

I debated for three years in high school and have a decent amount of experience judging. I am also active in my college debate team but we don't have policy unfortunately. I have yet to judge this years topic but am familiar with the basics.

I will do my best to evaluate arguments fairly using what was put in front of me by the debaters on the flow. The flow is how I will decide the debate so stay organized so I can follow you and put your arguments in the right spots. I don't have a problem with speed up to a point. If you are clear and articulate you'll be fine (I'll tell you if you're not). Don't just speed through your evidence because you slowed on your tag line, I still need to be able to understand the warrants. K's are good from both sides but please be able to clearly explain what your authors are trying to say in your words as well as theirs. I may not completely understand the K but if you thoroughly explain and analyze why it matters and why you win better than the other team you still have my vote. Theory and framework are fine and dandy although in absence of those I default to a policy-maker framework (which doesn't exclude K's as they have effect on policy). T is like a DA for me, if I don't have a reason why it's bad they're untopical I don't have a reason to vote for it. DA's are pretty straightforward I don't think you need an explanation. CP's, just make sure they're competitive how ever you want to present that. In CX tag teaming is fine but assist your partner don't dominate them (if that has to be done for the sake of clarification though then it has to be done).

I am slightly biased against a few arguments which doesn't mean you can't run them just that you may have to do a little extra work to convince me to vote on them. First of all A-spec I generally see as a time suck and run without real harm done to the neg. Multiple worlds slash conditionality with a K that links to some form of discourse that the neg argues later (e.g. a terror talk K then another argument with a terrorism impact). If you're going for that sort of K I'd rather you went full on with the K.

Really what I'm looking for is solid argumentation that isn't solely based in your authors but also your own analysis. If your analysis makes sense and is based in logic and your author's claims it's worth as much to me as reading another card. Evidence is often just stuff somebody else analyzed, your smart you can do it too. If any of this is unclear or you have other questions don't hesitate to ask before the round.

In the end give me a reason to vote for your team. Tell me exactly why you won and your opponent are complete doofuses.

Basically everything is up for debate except speech times and order, just do it well. Bonus points for puns and humor.