Capote,+Virgil

I am a fair and objective judge. I believe that any argument can be run and won on as long as the team can argue their point successfully. Following the norms of debate is important, unless you can prove to me why the norms of debate are bad or unnecessary for some reasons. Policy-oriented or K debates are fine.

Essentials: Have an impact, frame that impact Impact calculus Argument selection at the end of debate Voting issues (tell me the judge what to vote on, or else I will be forced to choose myself) Engage the evidence presented in round

Topicality I always enjoy listening to good topicality debates but I find them annoying if it's clear that the AFF is topical. (Proving that you meet, is quite alright for the AFF to beat topicality for me). The NEG can win topicality if they can prove that the AFF is not topical AND that that resulted in some type of unfair advantage for the AFF (abuse). I am much more keen to vote on NEG GROUND and FAIRNESS than EDUCATION.

Theory I have no problem voting on theory if NEG can prove the violation clearly and prove that that resulted in some type of unfair advantage for the AFF (abuse). Note however, 1 conditional argument WILL NEVER garner you a win on CONDO BAD. Do not waste your time trying to convince me that 1 conditional argument is abusive.(Unless the NEG drops the arg. Burden of Rejoinder #DaveSteinberg)

Style I am open to all types of debating. Spreading is fine in the constructed speeches. I prefer the rebuttals to be more deliberate and oratory. If you can find a way to be funny in your speeches, I am more inclined to boost speaker points. Clarity over spreading. Reciting a tag is not an extension of a argument. Put in the time to go over over the warrant of the card. Trust me, all of this helps the judge to make an informed decision.

Ethics Words mean things! Do not insult the other team. Keep it cordial and professional. Cross ex's are open but should not be dominated by partner responses or questioning.

At the end of the day, all debates usually come down to which team has done a better job of convincing the judge that which and why the arguments/advocacies they have chosen at the end of the debate are superior or should be weighed more heavily than their opponents.