Wimsatt,+Eric

Updated 2/2/2018

I debated four years for San Dieguito and qualified to the TOC my senior year. Currently I attend Berkeley but am not debating. Put me on the email chain: ericwimsatt@gmail.com

I'll try to judge based on what's put on the flow in front of me and will make attempts to mitigate my biases for or against arguments, but that being said I'm probably a better judge for some styles or arguments than for others so I'll make those preferences clear:

I've run this crap before. I understand their strategic value and the massive workload reduction if you read one. I feel like people reading K affs (myself included) get their speaker points inflated by most judges, but I'll try my best to be objective. Definitely not my favorite debate to watch but if you win it I'll pick you up. I'm not super well read in the newest wave of K goo and if I don't understand what you're trying to say I won't vote for you.
 * Not-Topical Affs:**

This was my go-to answer to K affs. I don't think it's reasonable for you to have a well-put together k strat specific to this aff (but do think that would be a more interesting debate). I prefer framework arguments that interact with the aff and have actual impacts. I generally don't think fairness is much of an impact but I also don't think a lot of fuck fuck baudrillard affs have one either.
 * Framework:**

I'm fine with them. Know what you're doing, make sure it links, and don't spend the whole block reading overviews. The more contextualized your analysis is to the aff the better off you'll be. I won't spot you any explanation on anything, regardless of my understanding of the topic, so if you want me to vote on your K, you shouldn't leave any room for misunderstanding. I was pretty into the K lit of one or two years ago but have since fallen out of touch with it. Keep explanations tight and you'll be fine.
 * Ks:**

I don't have too many preferences here. I'll probably default to reasonability but can be persuaded otherwise.
 * T:**

Yes.
 * Disads:**

I extend this a lot. I think it's a bad argument, but it's also the only generic this year and the aff answers are just as bad. Bonus points for tricky scenarios if you can explain them,
 * Politics:**

Do the case debate right and you'll be rewarded. Aff teams get away with a lot because neg teams don't press them on the warrants enough. If I think you got the aff to zero, I'll vote on presumption, but if you don't go all in I doubt I'll pull the trigger there.
 * Case:**

Case specific Counterplans are great. Generics work too, but I'm assuming you ran it every round and expect great things. For theory: Win the flow and explain why it wins the round or I'll just end up rejecting the argument. I prefer impact analysis beyond things like ground and topic education, I think those are more of an internal link to some impact in the world. I've read a lot of cheater/processy CPs and understand their strategic utility but don't think those debates are super fun to watch. The more specific the solvency advocate the easier this debate will be for you to win.
 * CPs:**

It's binding and can set up the rest of the debate. Be aggressive(to an extent). I'll write things down if I think they're important
 * Crossex:**

I'm giving this it's own header because I've seen it happening with fair frequency in high school debates. I recommend everyone records the round, regardless of tournament rules(nobody will know). I will also try to follow along during the longer cards because that's where it's worst. I will have 0 sympathy for clipping and you'll lose, get 0 speaks and I'll report it to tab.
 * Clipping:**

Flashing's not prep unless you take too long. When it comes to clarity I expect to hear every word. If you can't do that at speed you want to go at then slow down. I was unclear my sophomore year. Now I'm not. Practice. I like puns. Don't force them too hard. Bold strategic choices keep things interesting.
 * Other stuff**:

Win the flow and explain why it wins the round or I'll just end up rejecting the argument. I've read a lot of cheater/processy CPs and understand their strategic utility but don't think those debates are super fun to watch. The more specific the solvency advocate the easier this debate will be for you to win.