Johannes,+Cyrus

**Experience:** Debated for two years at Oregon Episcopal School, went to national circuit tournaments and won state senior year. Currently doing Parli at Lehigh University where I am a freshman.

**Philosophy**: I would consider myself to be a tabular rasa judge. I ran a lot of kritiks in high school but the single argument I won the most on was probably politics. Or Malthus. My AFFs were often policy with kritikal impacts. The point is, I am not very biased and that will show with the way I judge your round.

**Performance AFFs**. I have no problem with hearing them, I just need you to provide me with some reason why your performance deserves the ballot and is important in the debate space. When I debated these were getting quite popular but I rarely saw them done well. If you can do it well then please, go ahead. On the other side of the debate, I will listen to framework of course but it must be done tactfully and be well-warranted. The least interesting debates are ones in which the framework barely addresses the AFF. You wouldn't run a politics DA with no links, so why would you spew out a generic framework argument that is barely relevant to the AFF? In addition, I think some of the most interesting debates involve debaters getting creative about answering K AFFs. Things like political involvement DA's and interesting K's are awesome, and even if you can't come up with anything like that even a Cap/Mann K can be done very well.

Speed is fine. Weird arguments are fine. Incredibly fascist arguments are fine. Incredibly anarchist arguments are fine.

**Just tell me why you win.**