Lewin,+Danny

Danny Lewin Law student at UMich 4 Years Policy @ Glenbrook South, 4 Years Parli at Duke 0 rounds judged on this topic.

General: I go with the flow in the strictest sense. I prefer a more policy-oriented debate with impacts weighed and compared. My distance from policy debate might scare you, but I'm still good with speed. In general, have fun with your arguments and don't be a jerk and get your points out on the flow.

Also please note: I'm not familiar with this topic, so if at all possible definte topic-specific jargon and acronyms for me before you use them.

On the issues: TOPICALITY-- Offense/Defense, unless I'm persuaded otherwise. My threshold's relatively low, but that doesn't mean you can go by without persuasive voters. THEORY-- Much higher threshold than T. Flesh out your points beyond just the prewritten blocks. I'll vote on in-round or potential abuse if you give me enough reason to. KRITIK-- I want to be a good judge and accommodate debaters' preferences, I really do. But I'm just not a K guy and I never was, and on a basic level, I'm not steeped enough in critical theory to even *understand* most of the language deployed in critical theory. Don't let this deter you; I've voted on the K before, and I'll vote on it again– I just need a clear picture of what your argument is, how it impacts the round, and how I should evaluate it. Run your K if you're comfortable with it and feel it's a good strategic move, but you're going to really need to spell it out for me. PERFORMANCE-- Never judged a performance round. I'd probably treat it the same way as the K, except i'd be a) much more likely to pull the trigger on theory against it, and b) bemused. CP/DA-- Thumbs up. If you give me a link, internal link, and an impact, I can vote on it, regardless of what it is.