Donnell,+Casey

General
Still debating 3-Years Open Policy Debate at WSU cleared at multiple regional tournaments over Any additional questions please feel free to ask me, keep in mind my preferences are still evolving and a well-executed affirmative or negative strategy will not be punished and could alter my taste. That being said I have low/no tolerance for arrogance, but I am especially fond of humor and think that debates should be fierce and light hearted. After I give my decision feel free to ask questions, but I will not argue with you. After my time in college debate and judging I copied this from Matt Munday I think it describes my style as well, “I am not the kind of judge who will read every card at the end of the debate. Claims that are highly contested, evidence that is flagged, or other important considerations will of course get my attention. Debaters should do the debating. Quality evidence is also important. If the opposing team's cards are garbage, it is your responsibility to let that be known. Before reading my preferences about certain arguments, keep in mind that it is in your best interest to do what you do best. My thoughts on arguments are general predispositions and not necessarily absolute.”

C/X
Use it very wisely, I will listen to answers and take note of them as clarifications.

Case
Should be read in every debate, if the affirmative is way to the left then you can always impact turn. If your K, DA, ‘Speech Act’, fails to discuss the case I will likely fail to vote for you.

Topicality
The following is borrowed from Eric Robinson: “Your aff should defend the topic. However, how one goes about defending the topic is somewhat open to interpretation. I have little to no patience for teams who have no connection to the words of the resolution. I tend to think implementation of the plan must be defended but again, there is a debate to be had.” Beyond that, competing interpretations typically makes more sense to me than reasonability

Kritiks –
“I have to be able to explain to the other team why they lost the debate. Framing is very important. What should I prioritize? Life, ethics, being, something else? The important part is to establish a framing alongside your framework that filters which impacts matter. I am likely to default to killing everyone on the planet is bad, absent work done by the debaters to say otherwise. Be specific about the impact. “Violence” is not an impact. How does it occur? Who is it committed against? What is the scenario? A clear explanation in the context of the aff will go a long way.” –Brian Box I just want to emphasize, “I have to be able to explain to the other team why they lost the debate.

Counterplans –
I think that they are extremely strategic and should be introduced in every debate. I do not think that the negative has to go for CP or K to win the debate, but I do think they can very effectively limit affirmative offense. I think that CPs should have a solvency advocate, that threshold is a little bit higher for a pic. If you want to go for a word pic in front of me you should have more than just two cards from the author, or else I will probably vote aff on perm do the CP. If you do meet this threshold then a clever pic debated well could easily win my ballot and clever well-researched arguments like those are often rewarded with speaker points. I think it is important for the affirmative to introduce theoretical objections to CPs because I think offense defense good and am very negative leaning on all theoretical issues. Argument not the team 99% of the time.

Disads –
I think that this is the best tool in the negatives toolbox and a well-deployed DA and case strategy can be very compelling. That aside I think a lot of these are contrived and a smart affirmative team can do major damage to it in cross ex and beat it with minimal/no cards if it is stupid. DA turns the case is an important argument and the block and 2nr framing needs to be similar and the 2nr needs to contain framing arguments, similarly the 2AR has to contain ADVs Solve or Outweigh the DA arguments