Frederick,+Dylan

Debated Policy for 4 years at Juan Diego, Graduated 2014 Judging experience - at least 3 bid tournaments a year on average since 2014, judged at bid level tournaments including Greenhill, UNLV, Alta, and Bingham, as well as many local tournaments

Update for St. Marks:

For this tournament I'm going to do things a little differently. Normally I'm fine with anything in these rounds, but this time I would prefer to see policy oriented debates at this tournament, meaning I am going to lean more heavily towards the idea that the aff needs a plan text. The grey zone would be an advocacy statement such as "Me and my partner think that _____ should happen." I'll allow that but the ball is in the neg's court if they read framework, aff needs to work to tell me why an advocacy statement that doesn't defend the USFG is justified and why that creates a better point of clash for debate. This does not mean I don't want to hear K advantages, but if the authors are discussing more dense philosophical theory I need a lot more work done to create a picture of what the message of the aff is. This is especially important for both teams, I really need a clear picture of what voting for you does or I'll have trouble understanding why I should give you the ballot.

I'm also going to incentivize more risky strategies to try to get people to debate a little bit outside of the core generics and K's. I will give a large boost to speaker points if you: - Have a strategic counterplan (meaning there is good evidence comparison between aff and neg solvency. Obviously if the aff has weak fed key warrants, the states counterplan counts as a strategic choice), - Have a nuanced or well articulated topicality argument. Unfortunately I don't debate in college so my flowing skills have declined a bit, so **I really need you to go about 70-75% of your normal speed on T.** This applies to theory as well - Go for impact turns to the aff (If you go for an advantage counterplan with impacts turns you will get at least a 29 in speaks) - Have a DA to the aff outside of federalism or generic politics or elections DAs. I personally think if you can get a politics scenario that's based on a senator or cabinet member instead of the president, thats thinking outside of the box for this topic.

If you plan on going for a K because that's what works best for you, I'm not here to stop you, just know at this tournament I'll be more inclined to reward diverse strategies or unique explanations. To win a critique in front of me, I need an explanation of the alt first and foremost, If I don't have a clue what voting neg does, I default to comparing impact calculus between the two teams. I don't think you need to read "we get to weigh the aff for K framework, because that's my baseline. Pull a little closer to your side if you're going to read framework on the K flow. Links are important as well, because they can be utilized offensively. The best K debates for me will read a couple diverse links and use each of them to turn the aff's offense as or forward negative impacts at the same time.

For T and theory debates, as I said before, I need you to go slower on these arguments. Condo is a little harder to win in front of me, I generally think that the neg reading 1 k and 1 CP is reasonable. 2 CPs is a little less ok, and any more conditional advocacies beyond that are a lot harder to defend. I see T and theory more or less in terms of DAs. C/I are like the counter plans to the DA. For these Debates, I would evaluate the strength of the link (violation to the interp), then compare the offense between both teams. I see the C/I as a CP that is trying to sufficiently solve the offense of the original interp. Topical versions of the aff are nice, I see them as strong defense to offensive arguments made by the aff.

For any argument you make I consider framing arguments to be important. Whether its to view counterplans in terms of sufficiency, to view myself as an evaluator of educational scholarship, or to prefer the probability of a indo-pak war escalating over a economic diversionary war, these shape how I think about the round after the debate, so please make these arguments and structure your speeches around these centering points.