DiSanza,+Alexis

I competed in policy in high school and for 3 years at Gonzaga, and have been judging both LD and policy regularly for 4 years. I may or may not make faces at you while you speak. I am not doing it because I am mean. If I look confused, you are doing something wrong and you should stop. I typically prefer policy-based arguments, and do not have as much experience with kritiks. However, if that’s what you run, I’ll listen. Just be aware that I do not know the literature as well and I have a slightly higher threshold for explanation. I default to an offense/defense paradigm unless you tell me otherwise. CX is binding.
 * Policy:**

Topicality: I tend to lean aff on topicality arguments. The best way to win T in front of me is to articulate external impacts. Specific impacts are superior to potential abuse, and comparison of standards is very important for both sides. T is not an RVI, please stop reading that argument in front of me.

Theory: I am more sympathetic to aff conditionality arguments than other judges when the negative reads multiple conditional counterplans, especially if any those counterplans have multiple conditional planks. However, the aff has to develop these conditionality arguments throughout the round, and have a counter interpretation. Blippy tags won’t cut it. Most other theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument, not the team.

CPs/DAs: The more specific, the better. I tend to believe that counterplans should be both textually and functionally competitive. Even though I evaluate a round based on offense/defense, I will assign zero risk of a disad if you are substantially winning a defensive argument.

Kritiks: As I mentioned, I am not as familiar with this style, but I have both seen and run kritiks, and I can figure out what you’re saying and vote on it if you explain your link/impact/alternative clearly.

Do what you do best, and I will follow. Non-traditional formats are fine.
 * LD:**

I evaluate LD debates in a very similar manner as I do policy, offense is important. Value to value clash is very important but should not be separate from the rest of the debate.

I really don’t think Topicality or theory are RVIs. I have an extremely high threshold for this argument. I have never voted on an RVI and going for one will result in low speaker points. That being said, I can tell the difference between good theory arguments and dumb ones.

I flow the affirmative and negative on two separate sheets of paper. You will be expected to adjust your speeches and signpost accordingly.