Caldwell,+Erin

Greetings, debaters!

Demonstrating understanding of cards read and applying them, while remaining eloquent while doing so, will win you speaker points. I will avoid judge intervention, at all cost. If an argument is unfounded, but goes completely unanswered, I will assume it to be valid. Yet, I will still evaluate all other arguments and weigh them accordingly. Conceptual clash is more important to me than what has been going down in the flow.
 * My Preferences:**
 * Paperless Debate** – I won’t count jumping files against your prep-time as long as it’s done in an efficient matter. Time is of the essence, people!
 * DA** – Emphasis on impact calculation, preferable started in the wee hours of the debate. I’ll pull for cards if the debate is very close, unless sites are challenged by the debaters during the round.
 * K** – I studied physics and I’m now in law school. I’ve never been a philosophy buff. Please do not assume that I know what argument your author makes without thorough development, just by dropping a name. Also, please don’t toss around philosophical jargon without explanation. Please present a clear delineation of how the aff links to the K and articulate the function of the alternative and impact of the K in the world of the aff. Just a warning: ridiculously outlandish K’s will result in post-round jest.
 * CP** – Don’t read any blatantly abusive CP’s (not functionally distinct from the plan, compete on the immediacy of the plan, etc). This is the one time I will deviate from my policy of “no intervention”. Otherwise, fire away, Annie Oakley!
 * Theory** – I will evaluate good theory debates, even if the alleged abuse is negligible (otherwise refer to my above statement). I think theory debates have some educational value and various real-world applications, such as when an attorney argues a motion or makes an objection. Please slow down when reading theory arguments, especially when it comes to one-word arguments, like standards and voting issues.
 * T** – I weigh fairness and education just as heavily as competing interpretations. Also, slooow down when reading T arguments.

I feel like I’m missing something…. I am? Ask me before the round!