Glass,+Jeffrey

I debated for Pine Crest School for 4 years through high school. Right now I am a second year at the University of Chicago. I have not been that involved in policy debate the last year or two and lack comprehensive topic specific knowledge (I have not worked at a camp). That being said, I can follow speed so long as tags are clear. Here are my judging preferences: a.) I was a K debater, I love Ks and love hearing philosophical debate. Of course, that means it has to be a philosophical debate... not a bunch of mental... you know b.) not every dropped argument matters c.) T comes down to competing interpretations for the most part; reasonability should only apply when the interp does not really apply d.) I don't know what the usual T violations are on this topic nor how they are usually resolved (for instance, some topics lend themselves to lots of fx cases and usually the debate community settles on if fx is ok or not ok on the topic within bounds) so you have to impact your T claims and convince me why certain implications are more important than others e.) Conditionaliy is fun, but I will evaluate theory debates - if the aff wants me to vote you down for running 1 conditional CP and they beat you on the line by line you lose. At the same time, if you run 2 Ks and 3 CPs and win your theory claim, more power to you! f.) if its a bad round I will do work (what else would I be doing for 2 hours?!) and you might not be happy (neither will I)

any other questions just ask before the round