Remillard,+Ben

St. John's '09

I've been debating for four years at St. John's now, this is my first year judging. I debated this year's resolution at two tournaments this year so I am familiar with it. I'm pretty chill with just about anything. I value clarity over speed, and hate when debaters are rude to either each other or their partners. I expect debaters to be able to clearly and coherently elaborate on any and all arguments they run. I love being able to look down a flow and see that debaters are going line-by-line.

DA's-Love 'em, but only if their run well. I despise politics disads but will vote on them if necessary.

CP's-No problem, I'm fine with Consult CP's. just try to make sure that the NB's would be able to stand on their own as independant DA's if needed

K's-So long as a debater is able to clearly explain their K I find no reason to vote against them. I think they're definatly a way for debaters to learn more in round.

Kritical Affs-Fine with them so long as their clearly explained and well run

Theory-I dont like theory, but if you feel the need to run it then I will look into your arguments so long as they are cleanly thought and laid out.

T-I personally like T, so long as it's well run and well defended. I will be more than happy to vote on it if the other team a)refuses to answer, or b)is completly untopical