wooten+amy

Debated 4 years for cal state fullerton and 4 years at Phoenix central high school.

As a judge I will always try to put my personal bias about arguments aside. That being said don't expect me to have prior knowledge about your specific argumentation. Arguments must be well articulated especially in regards to framework.

Framework:I'm harder than other judges to win framework. Comparing interpretations and standards is essential to get my vote. I need specific warrants in the case and debate that not only proves abuse but how that impacts the debate as a whole. Saying "they are bad for education" is just a claim to me. I need specific instances and how that affects the ground and education in the round

Counter plans: I love a good counterplan but it needs to have aff specific evidence.I will listen and potentially vote for any counterplan but I'm less persuaded to vote for consult and process counterplans. I look for a counterplan that has clear net benefits that add a unique advantage to the neg case.

Kritik: Kritiks were my bread and butter in college and I have no opposition to listening to any philosophical argument. At the same time if you are to win a kritik in front of me the link story and alternative are the most important thing. I look for a aff specific, well developed link story. I believe a kritik should also have a solid well explained alternative.

Topicality: Competing interpretations and standards is the most effective way of winning topicality in front of me. I like to hear a comparison of the validity of the authors and the warrants and context of the definition.Look above to framework for more specifics.

Disad: If you're going to win a disad infront of me you must have a well developed aff specific link story. I need a good explanation of how the aff tips the brink of the impact. Impact comparison is also very important in me evaluating and comparing the aff case against the