Thompson,+Emma+(Whitman)

**I've been doing policy debate for Whitman for 2 years, and did PF and LD all four years of high school.** **How I decide Policy debates:** I will vote the way you tell me to. That means that I need some sort of framing done in the 2NR/ 2AR. Absent arguments about how I should weigh impacts, I'll default to offense/ defense. Also, I'm much more likely to vote for you if you give me clear voters - that usually means saying something like "vote here" and then doing some sort of impact calc. I'm open to voting off a non-policy framework, but if you want me to do that you have the burden of proof as to why that should happen, otherwise I default to a pretty basic util calculation. **Affs:** If you're just looking for whether I'll vote for a non-topical aff, the answer is yes. However, I am very unlikely to vote on an argument that I don't understand, which should be viewed as a warning to teams planning on running crazy affs/ Ks that the threshold for explanation is fairly high. I'm likely to give negs a lot of leeway on framework against affs that are clearly not topical- which is to say that I think that critical affs often fail to warrant role of the ballot arguments and just extend them blindly, which is unpersuasive to me. That said, if the aff is advocating a topical plan, even if it's through a weird/ critical method, I expect the neg to be extending something beyond framework in the 2NR. **Ks:** I will vote on Ks. However, I think that alts are often underexplained and I have a pretty high threshold for solvency arguments on either Ks or CPs. So if you want to win on a K make sure that you have a good explination of what your alt does and how it solves the K by at least the block. Note that this makes me generally skeptical of alts that are just reject the aff. In terms of affs reading FW against the K, I view FW as a reason why I should weigh the impacts of the aff/ have a higher threshold for links, not as a reason that the neg doesn't get access to the K. **CPs:** Strategic CPs are good. Cheating CPs are bad (i.e. consult, CPs that create a new mechanism without a solvency advocate). You should have a clear articulation of a net benefit. I'm also probably a little more prone to accepting perm solves arguments than most judges (this is also true of Ks where relevant). The more ridiculous the CP the more leeway I'll give the aff in terms of perms/ analytics **Theory:** On theory questions I'm sympathetic to voting on reasonability and drop the arg not the team arguments. The two major exceptions to that are consult/ delay CPs, which I am likely to accept theory arguments against, and T, on which I will default to competing interps unless told otherwise. I tend to think ASPEC is awful and will almost never vote on it. I also have a pretty high threshold on contradictory arguments - I'm ok with condo but I will drop arguments that you have answered on a different flow (which means you need to be careful about what cards you're reading).  **DAs:** I'm perhaps a bigger advocate of the educational value of politics DAs than the average judge but almost all cards are terrible so I will value smart spin over dumping evidence. Otherwise the debate I'd most like to judge is one with topic DAs and good case defense. **Presentational Preferences:** Tag team cx is fine. I don't mind aggression but speaker points will start going down if you don't answer the question or start being rude. Speed is fine, with the understanding that I do not flow at a thousand words per second. Don't forget that your aim is to get me to write down your arguments, and if I can't understand what you are saying, I won't write it down. I will try to warn you if you are consistently unclear. That means you should extend cards by argument, not author, if you extend them by author there's a 50-50 chance I won't know what card you want me to extend and will sound really bad when calling for cards. **Other Info:** Keep things organized, if I don't know where you are I will stop flowing. Also, I'll call for cards after round but I expect you to be extending warrants in round if you want me to vote on them. I have absolutely no sympathy for any sort of evidence abuse (clipping cards, fabricating evidence, etc.) and I will drop you if you're caught.
 * //As a warning: while I will vote on theory/ T I'm not usually very happy about it// **