Sherman,+Alex

My favorite judges in high school were always the ones who seemed really excited to be there judging my round, and the ones who emphasized voting on what was in the round. I love debate and I know you care about the activity to be giving up your weekends to compete in it, and I would be an asshole if I didn’t put all my effort into making the best decision I can. If you don’t think I’m paying enough attention, go ahead and call me out. 1 Tech Over truth, but to an extent. If you read an absurd standard on condo, and the 1ar drops it, I probably won’t vote for it. 2 Mediocre strategies may win in front of me, but, speaker points will likely suffer. If the 1ar drops aspec that was at the bottom of your t overview, and that’s your a-strat, I’m probably not the judge for you. I will give the 2ar a lot of leeway answering minute tricks like this 3 Protecting the 2nr. Its important to me, 2ars should have a high standard for drawing arguments from the 1ar unless they were clear in the speech. I.E. new 2ar cross applications should be justified in the speech. If I don’t think I could have seen it coming, I probably will think it’s new. 4 Counterplans Meh, advantage counterplans are legit, I’m agnostic on most other counterplans. Having a solvency advocate is great, and makes me less likely to reject the cp on theory it should be as good as the affirmatives. I think word pics are among the worst arguments in debate, but don’t let me dictate what you run. 5 Disads: I’m about the same as everyone else here. If you want to have a really techy politics debate though, there are far better judges than me 6 Kritiks I like them, they’re probably my favorite argument. I’m really into high theory, and probably am a good judge for you if you like to run kritiks. I’ve run all kinds of things, mainstream stuff like cap, and apoc rhet, to stuff like dng, baudrillard, and Heidegger. I think identity kritiks can also be devastating when done well, I just don’t spend as much time thinking about them. You don’t need to have an alt, as long as you win a reason the plan is bad. I.E. you win a disad to their representations. Your links should be specific to the aff. If I can’t tell what aff your debating in your 2nc on the k, we’re both gonna have a bad time. Floating piks, and other tricks are effective strategies, but are less fun to judge (Antonio 95 is the exception). Crushing the other team on the link debate definitely puts you on the fast track to success and makes me really happy to be watching you. 7 Speaks Things that will get you good speaks 5 minutes of Antonio in the 2nr-this wasn’t a joke 5 minutes of mcclean-also not a joke 8 Clipping- Don’t do it. I’ll be sad, and have to give you a 0 9 No argument too strange- I can be convinced to vote on anything if you do well. T is a rvi, double win theory, normativity k, silence k. If you think you can pull it off, and want to risk a ballot on it go ahead. 10 Non-traditional affs. I think I’m a pretty good judge for these. I think these affirmatives are unfair, but, can easily be persuaded that other things outweigh fairness, or that fairness is bad. I'll include the caveat though, that I think I'm actually a lot like Jon Voss, if the negative team competently extends framework, I cannot see myself voting affirmative. You should also know that I think I've been in maybe 1 or 2 rounds where I think the negative has competently extended framework with the requisite impact work and nuance to win rounds. You do you though, I've read everything from 1 off to 7 off against k affs, and I think that all of those can be effective means of responding to planless affs. Questions? Email me at alexsherman99@gmail.com I’ll probably answer pretty quickly