Cork,+Tom


 * Overall Paradigm: **

// Tabula Rasa judge: //
 * If the presented Plan is in a Stock Issues format, then I will vote as a stock-issues judge once Kritiks and Topicality are won.
 * If a Comparative Advantage Plan is run, then I will shift to a policymaker framework and weigh Advantages against DAs (see the note on DAs below), once Kritiks and Topicality are won.
 * If a Kritikal Aff is run, then all bets are off. Run framework and tell me why I should be voting for you.

Kritiks are a priori to Topicality, which in turn is a priori to the Plan.

**Speed**:

I enjoy spreading, but I dislike fast mumbling. If you’re not a proficient spreader, slow down. Reducing speed for tags, cites, and underviews helps your case immensely.

**Theory**:

Theory won’t win a debate on its own. Claiming in-round abuse or that your argument is better for education requires justification and strong links.

**Kritiks**:

I love Kritiks, but they must be strongly linked to the Plan. Otherwise, Kritiks are non-unique DAs.

//**Tell me the story of the Kritik**//. I want to hear persuasion and thought behind these arguments. A well-done K will make my weekend.

K Affs: Bring it on. Performance K Affs: Bring it on. Just tell the story well.

**Politics DAs**:

Please, no politics DAs unless you can prove that the loss of political capital extends past enactment of the plan.

__**Things that make my heart go pitter-pat**__:
 * Confident, assured underviews
 * Focusing on the claims above the evidence
 * Teams that stay on the offense and show clear strategy
 * TOPICALITY (as long as it is a well-structured T debate that is strongly linked to the Plan)

**__Things that make me cringe in my seat__**:
 * Evidence battles
 * Any kind of murky ethics (mis-claiming dropped contentions, falsely stating rules, overusing flash time for prep, etc.)
 * Having to vote on a weakly supported, but crucial, argument that wasn't answered.