Pittman,+Tres

=
There's nothing really wildly unique about my judging style - like most judges, I'll vote on almost anything well debated (with literally no exceptions). Debate is essentially rhetorical sophistry where everything can be problematized including large nebulous systems of rationality such as language. That being said, few small comments ======

=
 1. I have a decently high threshold for CP competition, and if for some reason you're inclined to go for a CP that competes off certainty/immediacy, don't just spread your theory blocks, articulate the reasoning of the sort of theoretical world that CP would justify. ======

=
 3. Reject the argument is my default, except on conditionality, or told otherwise. ======

5. Theory and conditionality debates are fun when committed to

=
6. Politics DA - i have a higher threshold for the internal link than most judges - so aff, jump on the logical defense. ======

=
8. if you make a sweet Dante or Borges reference I will boost speaks ======

=
 Lastly, I haven't judged on this topic at all. Basically I was into speed and policy args in high school but only went to a few college tourneys last year and ran the k almost exclusively. Since then I've thought about debate only in terms of my main academic interests of critical theory, philosophy, gender. I am especially into post-structuralism and French feminist theory. I think and talk about Derrida, Deleuze, or Cixous at least once a day (and am obsessed with Dante, if you can figure out how to incorporate that into the debate somehow.) ======

=
So basically run whatever you want, I'm okay with all frameworks even to the far-right and will evaluate them tab. ======

=
Biggest things for you to worry about are probably speed (I wont hesitate to speak up once or twice if I cant flow properly but will then stop) and technical, topic-specific language. Other than that let's have a chill round.======