Vaarvik,+Austin

Overall i'm tabula rasa, but given that tab rasa is inherently prone to bias and personal opinions i'll try to provide my own leanings as best as possible. Keep in mind you can win with anything in front of me but there some arguments may be harder than others to win and I may be predisposed to buy certain arguments more than others.


 * Topicality -** Generally I default to reasonability over competing interpretations. If you're running T against novice case area, its probably going to be fairly easy to win reasonability. That being said if the reasonability argument is just blippy and "Prefer reasonability over competing interpretations. Competing interpretations are arbitrary." Then the neg actually gives a decent warrant then yeah you can easily win on T in front of me.


 * Theory -** There is a lot of theory that I don't enjoy judging. I find at least in the Washington local circuit I can practically just flow the entire theory debate before it happens because the theory shells and responses have gotten so ridiculously generic. If you go for theory I will 100% vote on it if you're winning. I actually feel that I have a relatively low threshold for theory its just that people always seem to shy away from it as a final argument in the 2nr / 2ar. If your opponent just does a ton of blippy responses on your shell, don't be afraid to explode it in front of me. I'd love to see some teams that have the guts to actually not just use it as a time-suck. That being said, if you want to win on theory you can't just do like 20 seconds on it and expect me to vote on it.


 * RVI's -** Nobody likes voting on RVI's. I think usually they are one of the worst arguments to make and tend to be more blippy... There are lots of exclusivity arguments where I don't mind seeing a WELL EXECUTED AND NON BLIPPY (this being the key issue) RVI will make me vote. If someone runs a K of T and tries to generate offense on supposed exclusion then themselves has an exclusive framework, why not? There are actually lots of arguments where one team is claiming abuse but are actually themselves being abusive. Call them out on it.


 * K's -** I love well done K's. That being said they are VERY few on the local washington circuit that I consider to be well done. Obviously I evaluate the standard 3-4 card K that takes 2 minutes to read fairly. However thats never enough evidence or time to actually establish a solid link to the case and its why I really don't like a lot of the K's I end up seeing on the circuit. The more in depth the better. If you're not telling an extensive story about the causes of the K's harms you're probably doing it wrong. If your alt is some generic reject or what you claim "its not exactly a reject, its a refusal to do X." Thats actually just frustrating to hear as a judge. The more specific and creative your K is the better it is. Also if you don't FULLY understand your K I will be able to tell, your opponent will probably be equally confused when its worded poorly and then your own lack of knowledge on your own argument becomes clear. I really don't like it when people run K's and don't even understand their own K.


 * Framework -** Pretty self explanatory... tell me how I should view the round. Re: K frameworks, if its a generic K like the ones I mentioned I don't like seeing, I will probably be convinced to go with a race to the middle framework. If you're really just reject the aff and then you spew out some generic cards, i'm predisposed to assume the only reason you want to run the K is not because you appreciate the argument, its probably because you want to force the 2AC into 2 minutes of framework and a minute on the K proper in order to get out of the pre-fiot implications of the K.


 * CP's / DA's -** I combine these because its generic policy, If you make it a standard policy round then I judge it as such. I have no real prefrences on what you do for net bens, DA's, CP's etc. Multiple worlds is fine with me

Any other questions, just ask me in round.