Roberts,+Hanna

I do my best to prevent any of my preconceived notions about debate from influencing my decision, however, that requires the debaters to frame the debate for me and give me warranted explanations as to which arguments I should evaluate above others. Without that framing, I tend to evaluate theory (including topicality) before any other arguments.

Framework: Education is probably the reason we debate, so if you're going for framework you need to be winning a good defense of your pedagogy and a good offense against there's. I wouldn't go for Framework unless you can identify both of those things for me. As an aside, I also really like when AFF's mention the topic... so... your FW could be as simple as, "talk about the ocean..." and I'd be inclined to hear it.

Topicality: I have a pretty high threshold for abuse on topicality. Because it’s rather easy for the negative to find a definition that excludes the affirmative, I’m inclined to believe AFF pleas about reasonability. That’s not to say I won’t vote on topicality, especially if the negative can prove some sort of abuse, even if it’s merely potential.

DAs: Give me some impact calculus in the rebuttals. I expect your evidence to be well warranted and updated; I don’t like generic impact cards. To win a well-contended DA I think the NEG needs to tell a clear story in the 2NR with decent to good link evidence. But no one goes for DA's anymore so if you have questions, ask, because typing more out would be a waste.

CPs: I’m inclined to believe CPs should have a solvency advocate specific to the CP’s action. I find CP’s run in conjunction with contradicting critical arguments very unconvincing. Again, no one reads CPs so...

Ks: Read whatever K you want, I'm (likely) familiar with it but (likely) don't have an in depth PhD level knowledge on the material, so be good about explaining your buzzwords and telling me what they mean with regard to this particular round. I like rebuttals to be broken down specifically into all the link stories at once, all the impacts at once, and the alternative explanation at the end but that's just personal preference. Please don't be beholden to your overview because I won't likely be able to do the work you want me to when evaluating the debate by applying arguments for you in places you never made them.

Identity arguments: Be aware that I am not easily persuaded to vote on identity arguments ran by individuals who do not identify as that identity. For example, two non-natives reading Indians arguments or two men telling women what feminism is. Not to say there isn't productive education to come from those discussions, but I believe you're opening the door to an uncomfortable oppression olympics that can only be harmful to people who DO identify as the people you're talking about.

Other info: -Don’t steal prep. I DO take time to flash over cards. -Try to handle your own CX. Letting your partner answer all the questions/cutting your partner off during their CX will reflect poorly upon your speaks. -Don’t use all of your speech time if you don’t need it. I don’t want to hear the same thing over and over. At least use that time to give me impact calculus. This is mostly for novices...