Cluff,+Jilli

4th year judging varsity high school debate 6 years debating policy Feel free to ask or email me at jilli.cluff@gmail.com if you have any questions.

__**Meta-level issues**__ No biases against particular arguments, debate what you like and debate well. I'm slow at flowing theory.

__**Topicality**__ Either prove you're topical or tell me why topicality is bad, otherwise presumption shifts neg. Need a counter interp, counter standards and reasons why it's not a voting issue from the aff.

__**Case Debates**__ I look for depth of analysis and calculus. I'm looking for the biggest impact based on prob, magnitude, time frame //or// overall solvency of the advantages/case.

__**The K, K Aff** **and Framework**__ I'm not familiar with really deep literature, so break your args down for me if it's anything that's not the common: Zizek, Baudrillard, D&G, Negri & Hart, Foucault, Butler, Agamben. I like s with specific links; apply your K as specifically to the aff/neg as possible. I'm down for performance, etc.

Do what you want to on the aff. Whether you're T or not depends on the debate.

Framework can be an answer to critiques and I will default to the best justified interpretation if it becomes a framework debate. I type slowly; medium pace on the analytics would be best in front of me. Like T, make sure that you impact this debate out, especially in the rebuttals.

__**Counterplans**__ Do anything you want, I'll listen to any CP theory arg from either side. Conditions CP debates are probably my favorite of all to debate args to listen to. Be tricky.

__**Disads**__ Love them. A specific link story is always preferred, shake out the impact debate (especially in the rebuttal) and clarify your internal links a bunch.

__**General Theory**__ I am totally open to hearing all sides of the theory debate and I prefer a little theory ink in every debate. Always justify "reject the arg" or reject the team". Just saying that won't get you far. I can be persuaded to err on conditionality either way. A lot of the 1AR will have to be invested in Condo for me to vote on it if you go for it in the 2AR. Usually go slower on the theory debate,

__**Procedurals**__ Prove the violation, prove the abuse, and impact it all out. You'll have to invest a substantial amount of your time in the rebuttal to get me to vote on this, however.

__**Personal Biases? Sure**__ I like specific, substantive debates more than just theory or framework. Debate is a game and the end goals ought to be education and entertainment. Conflated scenario debates are sort of the best--that can be anything from massive nuclear war to WGLF-flavored arguments. I also LOVE jokes. Be funny. Debate what you debate well and what you like. Lightening the mood of the room can only be good for you. Diverse 1NC strats, concise 2NR decisions.
 * Ethos=important. If it's not there, your speaker points will probably reflect that. **

1ARs should use embedded clash to their advantage, I'm pretty sympathetic. I will usually spend 10-30 minutes looking over the flow, which means that I expect a lot of argument interaction. If you drop something and the other team make it a point, then I have very little to no reason to punish you.