Boxer,+Jeffrey

I graduated from Lexington High School in 2009. I attend Brandeis University.
 * Background**

I will listen to anything. As a debater, I hated being only able to run certain types of arguments in front of different judges. Everyone has their own opinions and biases, but I feel that it is the job of the judge to evaluate any argument that is made in the round. While my own personal background affects how I view and understand different arguments, I will listen to anything. Thus while I was mainly a policy oriented debater in high school, and would truthfully rather hear a good politics debate than a good biopower debate, this will not impact your speaker points or change the way that I vote. I will (and have) voted for critiques.
 * General**

Politics is good. Really dumb disads piss me off. Examples would include disads with 6 internal links, disads with no internal link, disads with really lame impacts, or extremely minute tradeoff disads. If a position doesn't even look viable after the 1nc, it is a waste of your time and of mine. A smart 2a can beat many of these disads with 3-4 smart analytics.
 * Disads**

Impact work is important. so is turns case analysis. Magnitude, timeframe, and probability comparisons at the link and internal link level are also extremely important. Without this analysis, judges are forced to intervene. Comparative impact calculus will get you good speaks.

I didn't read them much in high school. I know the literature and arguments pertaining to things such as terror talk, security, the prolif k, or development much better than things such as Nietzsche. I don't necessarily err aff or neg here, but definitely need more explanation. While I will listen to anything, I don't think I'm the best judge for extremely K oriented teams simply because I am not particularly great at judging them.
 * Kritiks**

If you do go for the K, turns case analysis is important for me. Also, I am easily persuaded by an aff team that calls out the neg for morphing the alt throughout the round - probably not a reason to reject the team but if you can pin them down on what the alt does in 1nc cx, and it drastically changes (which it usually does), I do lean aff here.

Do more of them. Even though I was a 2a in high school, I generally think that the 2ar gets away with far too much spin on case debates. Neg teams should utilize case debates more. It also gets you better speaker points when you destroy a team on their turf.
 * Case debates**

I don't know the topic. If you are going to go for T, don't assume that I know the acronyms and cases that you are talking about, or even necessarily the exact wording of the topic, because I probably don't.
 * T**

That being said, I like T debates.

I also like ASPEC, and think that OSPEC and substantial = wmq are dumb arguments. You can still read them, but I probably have a bit of a higher threshold.

I was a 2a, so I have some aff sympathy, but I do tend to have a high threshold for theory. I also tend to default to reject the arg not the team, though I can easily be persuaded otherwise.
 * Theory**

Delay and conditions counterplans - I lean aff here. You can definitely win the theory debate on those if you are neg, but I still generally think they are cheating. I tend to think multiple counterplans are fine (again, if you win the flow on conditionality you'll win the round, this is just my personal belief).

I will be much more inclined to vote aff on theory if the argument is tailored to the specific round. So rather than reading a 10 point conditionality bad block, arguments such as conditional PICs, or specific types of PICs are bad sound much better, and the other team generally answers them wrong I also like interpretations on theory - they are underutilized.

Don't be a dick. I'll take off speaker points. Don't stare me down the entire round either. I will get it when your opponent makes a dumb argument. You don't need to roll your eyes 5 times. I'm a smart dude. If you can make a good joke, I will probably tack on half a speaker point. Just ask about anything else