Pitingolo,+Robert

Saint Ignatius
Background - I have been involved in policy debate since 2001. I debated for 3 years in high school and 1 year in college.

General: I consider myself a Tab judge leaning slightly more toward a policy maker. This means I am willing to listen to any argument, but I generally feel that debate is about resolving policy issues. This also means framework debates are important if you plan on going for an argument in another framework. I prefer not to read evidence after the round, but I will if there is a clear dispute. I am fine with speed granted it is not unbearably unclear.

Topicality: Make sure it is well developed in the round. Reasonability vs. competing interpretations is an argument I think you need to win in order to win this argument.

Counterplans: I am more than willing to vote for them. Permutations should be well explained and preferably have written texts. I tend to be negative leaning on most counterplan theory; BUT that doesn't mean I don't think some counterplans are bad or abusive. To win theory you must prove either why the specific counterplan is abusive in the round or why it sets a bad precedent for debate.

Kritiks: Not really my cup of tea, but that is not to say I am unwilling to listen or vote on them. I am generally not familiar with a lot of the literature and lingo, so explanation is very important. I prefer specific links or links that are very well explained. The negative needs to be clear as to how the kritik functions in the round and how it should be weighed against the affirmative. Perms should also be well explained and the negative should have good answers to them.

Any questions please ask!