Glass,+Rob

Debated at Binghamton University.  Coaching history: Binghamton University '11-'12 -> University of Rochester/James Logan High School '12-'13 -> Binghamton University/James Logan High School '13-'14, and now I run the Stuyvesant High School Policy Program.

I view my job as a judge to facilitate whatever the debaters want to do in front of me, and to try to vote as is most appropriate. So, the really short version of my philosophy: do what you feel like doing and I'll play along.

If that's not enough for you, however, here's a quick sheet as to what I like to see, but please understand that I'll gladly defer to whatever you want to do:

Cps: I love me a good CP debate. Consult and most Agent Counter-Plans tend to be run in incredibly abusive ways but I'll still vote for them. More generic PiCs, however, are usually fine.

Condo/Dispo: Condo is like alcohol, okay if imbibed in moderation but excess necessitates appropriate timing. If you run six condo CPs and two condo Ks, you better be able to justify it. I am fond of Dispo, and will cut teams a lot of slack if they use dispo in an appropriate way.

Other Theory: I like competing interpretations on Theory, and I tend to give more credit Aff than Neg, but it usually takes quite a bit of abuse to get my ballot on Theory. That or the other team needs to drop the flow (which happens more often than we'd all like to think.)

Framework/Critical Affs: Over time I've become more and more open in regards to the kind of discussions that should be 'allowed' into the debate round. In a way I find it impossible for an activity as self-aware as ours not to fundamentally question the basis for debate and offer alternative ways of debating. The flip side of this is that I do think that the core of policy debate has some value to it. So, if you have some sort of non-traditional advocacy to offer, offer it, I'd probably love to hear it but you do need to answer framework and you need to be able to discuss why your particular advocacy is uniquely important, and if you're a policy team in a 'clash of civilizations' round don't lose hope, just debate smart and do what feels right.

T: Quickest way to my ballot is through Ground-lost. If you can't prove that you've lost ground this is going to be an uphill battle for you. Also, if you are Aff and say “Reasonability Checks” do not be surprised if I vote Neg. My reasoning may be very different than yours, and if I don't think your aff is reasonably topical it won't get my vote.

Performance: I dig.

Dis/ads: If you run a dis/ad in front of me (and please do) spend more time on the Link story than the Impact story. Otherwise, do whatever feels best. (I have come to harbour an intense dislike for politics DisAds, I think they're outright counter-educational and are almost universally non-intrinsic. I will vote on them, but I will glower at you all the while.)

Case: Case args are a dying breed. I tend to really enjoy a good case debate (and debates I enjoy = high speaker points all around). I am also someone who thinks that the Aff needs to win Solvency to justify me voting for them. If the Neg proves that the Aff has no Solvency I'll gladly vote there.

Ks: Yes. Most of my debate work (and academic work) now deals with critical theory directly or indirectly. I tend to prefer Ks that come from outside the mostly-French post-structuralist miasma the debate community seems to have found itself in of late. Just make sure you explain yourself clearly, and do whatever you think is best. If you have questions about my familiarities with authors, feel free to ask me before the round. (After a number of rounds I've noticed that I seem to have a higher threshhold on the K Permutation. If you're going to go for the perm please explain how it works in some depth in the 2AR, don't assume that a line or two is good enough to win my ballot.)

Have fun, and good luck.