white,+caleb

I think I am a standard policy-maker. I am fine with disads, cps, kritiks, T, theory; in fact good negative strategies should have some or all of the previous. To me kritiks are a little more persuasive if there is a uniqueness/timeliness aspect; conversely generic, dated kritiks won't go very far and I probably won't understand them. Kritiks should also have to compete with the 1AC i.e. the kritik should interact with the internal links of the 1AC solvency/harms story on some level. I think it is reasonable to expect the negative to articulate some mechanism for the alternative; simply wishing away impacts is not sufficient. Also, you have to be able to summarize the args in your own words.

Organization, politeness, and clarity garner higher speaker points. Having your speech saved on your flash drive prior to stopping prep time will also be awarded with extra speaker points. If we start the round after the start time on the ballot then I think it is only fair to the tournament to sacrifice this additional 15 seconds in the interest of keeping the round moving. I also prefer rebuttals that summarize, compare, and evaluate the key arguments (which include __warrants__) of the round rather than repeating tag-lines or telling me what the other team dropped.

The older I get, I find that I would rather not hear any theory at all really but sometimes it is necessary and I do feel that there are some args on either side that warrant theoretical objection e.g. plan-plus or multiple contradictory conditional probablistic worlds although again, depending on the situation or 1AC, if you have some specific reason for it, then some PICS/consults may be strategic and/or necessary. I also would not recommend performance-based args like playing music, singing/rapping, or dancing. While I have voted for these arguments in the past, I haven't necessarily seen them done well enough on the high school level to lend them the necessary respect they probably deserve, and I am probably pre-disposed against them.