Sheaff,+Spencer

Affiliation: Dowling Catholic High School/Cornell University Rounds Judged on this topic: 6

1) I don't speak French or German, which usually means you will need to err on the side of over-explaining you kritik, particularly the alternative and the link, if you want me to vote for it. That's not to say I dislike or do not vote for kritiks, but I do like to know what it is my ballot endorses, so be specific and clear.

2) I did novice policy for Cornell University, and was marginally successful at it. It has been two years, and my ear is not as attuned to speed as it used to be. You don't have to talk normal, but if I'm not writing down your tags and authors, it probably means I can't understand them. On that note, I really like having tags and authors down, so be __clear__ and help me know when you're moving on to the next card.

3) Debaters construct the rules of policy debate, so I generally let theory arguments speak for themselves. As a debater, I tended to believe that A) aff's needed to defend, and therefore specify, a great deal about their plan action, particularly which branch of the USFG does the plan; B) negative teams have a particularly high burden of proof on counter-plans because fiat stems from the word should in the resolution (which is property of the Aff); 3) Dispositionality was the fairest status of counter-plans and alternatives in round; 4) Theory arguments that can show in round abuse can be reasons to reject the team.

4) On the framework debate, again debaters construct the rules of debate, so anyone can win that flow. My default is towards allowing both the aff and the neg to weigh their impacts in the round. In the absence of work done convincing me otherwise, I believe in deontology and will first act not to do bad; in the classic train on the train tracks, that means i will not pull the lever to save more people because the act of condemning the individual to death is immoral. This has tended to mean that while I will allow aff's to weigh their impacts, avoiding moral harms of kritiks are considered gateway issues for me. But as is the theme, you can convince me otherwise.

5) Debate is full-contact social studies. While I'm open to most things in a policy debate round, you will be incredibly hard-pressed to justify performance affs or affs that do not engage with a USFG plan action. "Spencer and Jim-Bob will no longer consider Section 212a3b of the Immigration and Nationality Act" is not only not topical, but also non-inherent.

Other questions? Ask me. If it's not covered here, I probably don't care, but it's not going to hurt you to ask.