Campfield,+Joshua

I don't judge college rounds as I am still in college.

I did four years of policy in high school in Missouri. I Have done parli and policy in college at Southern Illinois and University of Missouri-Kansas City.

I have judged maybe 25 rounds on this topic, but I haven't seen many cases. It's been very repetitive so topic knowledge isn't spectacular, but I can grasp it.

T- I like a good T debate, but make sure there is a clear story for abuse. I tend to think T is a voter, but I have voted otherwise. If you decide to go for T I find it much more convincing to go for just T in the 2NR. Spec arguments are... whatever. I haven't voted on one, but that's just because I have never judged a GOOD spec debate.

Performance- Go for it, but explain yourself.

CPs- Just make it competitive with a clear n/b. Agents, pics, phaseout... whatever. I'm on the fence as far as theory. Most of the debates I see where theory is still in the rebuttals it seems that nobody impacts it. If they did I would evaluate any theory, but if you don't impact it, I won't.

kritiks- open to them, but don't assume I have read as much of your author as you, but I have read some. Feel free to ask.

Case debates- I tend to think the best debates usually have some sort of case debate involved, but I much prefer offense, and if you must read defense atleast make it strategic.

disads- ok.

framework- if two teams are reading positions in clashing frameworks I find a good framework debate to be a good and interesting part of the round. Just start the debate as early as possible (within reason)

overall: I tend to like rounds where the neg has a good strategy. I hate seeing people just reading whatever they can. If you are good at something... do it. Feel free to ask me any questions before the round.