Cornish,+Andrew

I guess if you have to put a label on it, I would describe myself as offense/defense.

I think the goal of a debate round is to win the most offense. To me this means the Neg has to win an offensive reason to reject the affirmative. This can be in the form of a disad and case, a CP, K, or Topicality/Theory. In order for the Aff to win, they must defeat the offensive reason to reject them that the Neg presents. This will normally require offense to do, or at least reasons why the affirmative outweighs.

I try not to intervene as much as possible, but have found that this rarely if ever happens, due to debaters failing to do proper work. Most of my RFDs come down to which side I have to do less work for in order to justify a ballot. The only "work" I routinely do is I require arguments to be run properly. By this I mean I don't care if you mislabel something as offense and the other team doesn't call you on it. If it's defensive I will evaluate it as such, regardless of the label.

I do not try to determine "truth" in a debate round, as such even if I know your argument is scientifically impossible, I will attempt to keep that out of my decision if the other team fails to call you on it.

Calling for Cards - I don't like to do this because I see it as intervention. If you do a good enough job extending warrants and comparing evidence I won't have to do this.That would make me happy.

I probably have a low threshold for racist/sexist/homophobic, etc language. Do not engage in it. I will tank your speaks if you do.

Specific Arguments:

T - I default competing interpretations. People ask. If you go for it, please "go" for it.

Ks - Don't assume I know your author, but read it if you know how.

CPs - I err neg on CP theory. I don't think any CP is unfair unless proven otherwise.

Speed - It is in your best interest to slow down on Topicality and Theory unless you want me to only flow every other argument or so.

__Things I don't like__ - I do __**NOT**__ like new arguments run in the 2NC. I think this is poor strategy on the negative's part. Although this does __not__ mean I won't vote on your theory, because I will not vote negative just because the Aff drops an inherency argument (which, by the way, I dislike categorically) I don't inherently think this is unfair to the Aff. - I don't like when one debater or the other dominates his/her partner. That's great that you think you are smarter than your partner, but I don't want to know that.

__Things I do like__ Sneaky negative strategy, a coherent negative strategy, affirmatives who don't forget the 1AC after they read it, negatives who attack the affirmative case and don't just read offcase, teams who can adapt to my paradigm, and good impact calculus.

__Am I qualified? -__ Yes, I am qualified to judge you. By the way, there is no way for you to ask this question without sounding rude. I broek at TFA State and was 15th at NFL Nationals my senior year. I've coached high school teams for 3 years now and judged pretty much every weekend since graduating.

If you have questions just ask.

LD - Pretty much everything above applies here as well. I default to the V/C as a framework to evaluate the offense, but am willing to vote on offcase of any sort, a plan, no value, etc. You should go slower when not reading evidence to give me pen time.