Dinner,+Scott

I am a Senior debater at Emory University. I debated policy in high school all four years. I would consider myself a more ‘straight-up’ debater. That being said, I will vote for anything if you win the argument/explain the argument well enough. I tend to try to judge tabula rasa, so I will be relying on what you say in the round rather than bringing in my own understandings/thoughts.

One major thing for me is clarity, especially on tags. As long as you are clear, speed is fine. Also, I view impact analysis as crucial. As far as calling for cards, if you want me to call for a card, I expect you to have made comparative args as to why I should prefer your evidence and you must extend and cite the card in your 2nr/2ar.

Topicality – I tend to default to aff reasonability, so if you are going for T make sure that you are up on competing interpretations good. The most significant thing for me is that the arguments have good warrants i.e. don’t just say that their definition is bad because it steals your ground, explain why that is abusive (such as explaining why the ground that you lost is crucial ground).

Theory – As with T, I will vote on it if you can give me a coherent story explaining why I should. You must do a good job of explaining the warrants to win the argument. Don’t just read a slew of arguments for theory, one or two (or more) well developed and warranted arguments will get you much further than just re-reading your blocks in the rebuttals.

Kritiks – As I stated previously, I am more of disad/cp debater, although that doesn’t mean that I haven’t run kritiks or won’t vote on them. To win on a kritik I want to hear a coherent and specific link story rather than just “they use the state” as well as I want to have a clear idea of what the alternative does.

Performance – I don’t have all that much experience with performance, but I will vote for it.

Random stuff – tag team cx is fine as long as one partner doesn’t always speak. Have fun/ tell jokes if you want. Um not much else…Play Nice, don’t be a jerk to the other team, to me, or especially to your partner.

LD (for Barkley Forum Tournament) I have not judged an LD round prior to this tournament but I have watched a few. In regard to the topic being economic sanctions, I think it is relevant to let you know that I am a political science/philosophy major and that I have a fair bit of background in this area (both policy and critical). That being said, I tend to judge tabula rasa, so you I will be relying on what is said in the round rather than bringing in my own understandings/thoughts.