Foley,+Jordan

Debated 4 years at Little Rock Central High and just finished my Juinor at Missouri State and have judged very few rounds on the high school topic.

I will say that I dont think you should overadapt to anything below about specific arguments. I definitely have tendencies and leanings on certain issues but they are all debatable and I am pretty open to anything

__Topicality__ I usually think this is extended poorly in high school rounds but I do enjoy hearing a good T debate. I will say that I dont know a lot about the literature so it would help you if you explained techy interps related to social services. My threshold for voting on T is fairly high. I think impact explanations are the most important and most often done poorly. There needs to be a pretty deep discussion of fairness, ground etc is a must - i find myself cringing way to much when teams re-read standards in their shell and consider it 'extending T'. Just using buzzwords will not get you very far. a very specific explanation of what a debate world looks like under your interp is helpful. counter-defining words is a must - you will find yourself way behind in these debates if you dont. Competing interps makes more sense to me than reasonability. I also think that teams need to either not put T first in their order or if they do slow down at first. Acclimating myself to your voice and speaking style may be necessary and if i do miss something for that reason its probably better for you for me to miss the uniqueness card to your politics DA than 3/4ths of your T shell.

I will also say that i prefer that affs have a plan text and defend something related to the topic - i can be persuaded otherwise but you are probably fighting an uphill battle

__CP__ I like them. I err negative on most theory issues and have a very hard time conceiving of voting down the team for any CP theory issue other than conditionality. I also have about as high of a thres specific PICs are great - Generic PICs are not so much. Consult CP and Condition CP's are understandably strategic neg args but I probably lean aff on a lot of theory args about these two kinds of CPs. As far at topic specific CP's go I have no exposure to these on the poverty topic so very specific/techy CPs probably requires more explanation in front of me than a judge who is familiar with the lit.

__DA__ Impact calc, Impact calc, Impact calc, and Impact calc. Everyone has an nuke war impact (or at least you should) so the relevant question is usually not "who gets to nuclear war" but "how do I evaluate two or more different nuclear war scenarios". Impact buzzwords like 'timeframe' and 'magnitude' need very warranted explanations and, more importantly, comparisons to the other teams impact. disad turns case arguments are incredibly useful for affs and dangerous for affs - 1ARs should take the time to answers these thoroughly.

__Critiques__ My propensity to vote for these arguments is directly proportional to how specific the K is. I am much less persuaded by your generic "you used the State" links than I am your specific criticism of poverty reps. That said, Impact calc is still the overriding factor at the end of the day in a majority of these debates. Also I feel as though alternatives are rarely explained with much detail and I wish that were not the case. I am less sympathetic to K teams that dont allow affs to weigh their advantages than I am to teams that use root cause claims to flip try or die scenarios for the aff.

__Speaker Points__ on the 30 point scale my baseline is usually a 27 unless you did something offensive/unethical. Being funny, good cross-x's, and making smart strategic decisions will all go a long way in keeping you away from the lower end of that spectrum.

Dont be rude or unnecessarily mean - debate is supposed to be fun - do your part to make that happen