Minton,+Michael

This is my first year coaching debate. I'm really more of an LD judge, but have done some policy judging in the past. I am still learning, but have judged several outrounds and have never been sat... I feel fully confident in my decision at the end of any round.

LD:

Anything you can throw at me is fine... I am just as comfortable evaluating the K as I am theory, stock issues, topicality, etc. Speed is generally not an issue, as long as you articulate and speak clearly. I tend to enjoy philosophical arguments and appreciate when they contribute to the round. Feel free to criticize your opponents evidence in cross-ex, there's not enough of this in debate. I very rarely call for cards at the end of rounds, so don't suggest I do in the round.

POLICY:

SPEED: I prefer slightly faster than conversational speed with an emphasis on your tags (this is how I'll track your arguments throughout the round). If I can't hear your evidence, it didn't happen in the round, as far as I'm concerned.

IMPACTS: I tend to weigh these heavily; however, "nuclear war" will not win the round... This is over-used and is not really a plausible argument - it seems as though every plan can lead to/solve nuclear war. I tend to lean toward more realistic impacts/solvency (i.e. Neg CP solves for structural violence) This is much more realistic.

K's: I enjoy these, but haven't heard very many.

THEORY: Unless abuse is actually happening in the round, I'm not a fan. Being said, give me a good abuse story.