Waltenberg,+Greg

Waltenberg, Greg I debated for Technology High School. I have assisted in coaching at Technology High School for 2 years and have been judging for 3. I consider myself to be a pretty open minded judge, as I won't strike you down for running any particular position, but as a blank slate it will be up to the debater to create the arguments I will pull the trigger on. I do have certain preferences on certain arguments as follows: 1)  I am well versed on theory arguments and have been known to vote teams down on theory, but if you are going to run theory you need to clearly demonstrate that there was abuse in the round and that the abuse is enough for me to pull the trigger on that alone.   2)   I don’t mind critical arguments, though I’m not familiar with all of them. If it’s something completely out there, you might have to explain it to me for it to carry weight. The alternative should be something substantive, even if it doesn’t solve the affirmative. 3)  Topicality is not a voters issue for reasons of fairness and education, that doesn’t suffice as a reason to vote for topicality. Voters should be linked back to standards while the abuse story is well articulated. (DON’T SPEED THROUGH T… IT GETS ANNOYING TRYING TO FLOW AN ENTIRE T IN 20 SECONDS)    4)   I don’t like to ask for evidence after a round if I can avoid it. Know your evidence. Be ethical (don’t power-tag, omit or downright lie) about your evidence. Use it to your advantage. Refer to its author and implications when you cross-apply or extend it. 5)  You should use your final five minutes to help me evaluate the one or two most compelling arguments in your favor. Magnitude is great, but even the most horrific of impacts mean little when they’re totally improbable.    If you have specific questions you can address them to me in the round.