Nelson,+Hayley

Generally, I think debate should be fun for both teams involved. That being said, I do understand that it is a competition and the goal is to win. I would prefer if you were nice to each other (this includes your partner) as I do deduct speaker points for rudeness.

I'm a very policy oriented judge. I think you should have a plan, and that plan needs to be topical. Of course, I'm willing to listen to debates about what that actually means. I'll listen to any arguments as long as they're debated well. I like politics a lot but I don't like to read politics cards at the end of rounds, so you need to tell me what they say. Obviously, specific disads are preferable to generic disads but I will still evaluate generic disads provided they are explained well. A good counterplan debate is enjoyable and I tend to err negative on theory unless abuse is proven. If you think theory is a viable option in the rebuttals, slow down on the blocks in the constructives.

With respect to kritik debates, I think kritiks are interesting but frequently debated poorly. I don't evaluate overarching statements using large words which cannot be explained by debaters. I think kritiks are frequently used as an easy way out and I believe there must be a clear alternative to the world of the affirmative. Rejecting the aff most likely won't solve, you need to prove it will. A specific link is also preferable. I am in no way an expert on critical literature and I like arguments explained simply to me.

Generally- you can go to the bathroom, you can drink water, you can tag team, I don't care at all. Don't call me "judge" or "miss", Hayley is fine. Have fun and be nice!