Blenner,+Michael

I have 4 years of experience as a policy debater at the Bronx High School of Science. I currently attend Purchase College.

I am fine with speed. I do not give much weight to cross-examination unless you distinctly identify something important your opponent says in cross-x in a later speech. I have not judged enough to have serious opinions on most constructions of debate; that being said I do have some preferences:

-Affs with no plan/performance: I like well-done performance affs, however if you do not give me a viable reason to ignore framework or topicality I will vote you down. I give a lot of weight to neg-side abuse arguments vs. performance affs and feel like even general fairness abuse violations need to be addressed by the aff for me to evaluate your case.

-Theory: I tend to sway neg, if only because I think most common theory violations are fairly benign, and unless you can prove why in-round abuse outweighs education, I will usually give the benefit of the doubt to the team that starts the “abuse.”

-Ks/critical affs: You need to articulate your argument. I am not well-versed on the critical literature of the topic and if you assume I know your argument and fail to explain it well I will probably ignore it.