Teel,+Adam

__**Background:**__ I debated for Buhler High for 3 years, went to some national circuit tournaments, but mostly competed in Kansas (and also will probably judge only in Kansas too).. I loved debating in Varsity.

__**Speed:**__ If its clear, and somewhat understandable, its all good. And if your speeding, please, please, be somewhat loud. Hit too many teams that read so quiet it was almost impossible to understand them. Don't purposefully speed in front of me if u can't, but if u want to, then go for it (long as it meets above criteria). Will probably yell clear if ur not...

__**General Thoughts:**__ I really don't have much care for what's ran in the round, as long as it has some point to it... Don't read a random poem or do a performance have no reason to run in the first place (this should be obvious).

__**T:**__ Never been a fan of t, but if u are the neg and end up going for it, then there is a chance i will still vote on it. Although seemingly, (i guess its the bias from the rounds i have had), i generally end up having a more aff-bias when dealing with issues of topicality. The neg is going to have to spend a decent quantity of time and effort on the flow to have me end up voting for t.

__**CPs:**__ I really don't care if u run them, in fact, i would encourage that you did. When i debated, i ran agent cps quite often (states, executive order, etc..), so i am up for whatever. Generally anything is good, as long as you can prove competition. Sometimes random word pics, like "the" are seemingly hard to believe or be persuaded by, but hell.... if u can run it well enough, u might end up getting my ballot. Advantage CPs are all good.... main point is just run whatever the hell you feel like. So overall overview + more specific:
 * PICS -** good stuff, especially if its a strategic plan pic (ex: on the alternative energy topic, people ran RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standard) that included many energies... people commonly PICed out of one of them, generally wind)... obviously having a DA based specifically around the PICed item would be a smart move...
 * Consult/Condition -** its whatever..its ur debate
 * Delay -** might be competitive based on how the aff structures things, or how a cross-x goes... just debate it
 * Alternate Actors -** my favorite, but i am pretty unbiased on the situation
 * Word PICs -** generally dumb unless there is a pretty good reason for it

__**Kritiks:**__ This is probably closer to where i generally feel comfortable. I ran a kritik 2 of 3 years, and particularly ran biopower and the cap k. I generally know a decent amount of critical literature, but if u are pulling a fairly new criticism out, then u are going to have to be doing a little bit more analysis.. But generally also, if u are running an alt that is muddled or vague as hell, generally u are going to be spending some time working on this. Generally with kritiks (like what most rational people should believe as well), u can win the k and still lose the alternative. However, when a team, or even both, debate the kritik poorly, its just an agonizing round for everyone. I generally don't think that kritiks require an alt text, although generally there might need to be some form of advocacy. Although while this is so, it will be harder for me to be proven that a perm is intrinsic if there isn't a well-defined advocacy/the alt as a whole.

__**DAs:**__ Run them... seriously... unless u are deciding to go 1 off, kritik. :)... You better be giving me an impact calc, because otherwise u might not like the way i decide things. Most teams seem to not strap in for a DA, block out common responses and roll with it. Politics was my favorite, but it seems that many times it turns into "i have 30 uniqueness cards and they have 10, we win"... Sure, but i think that a good team with less evidence but better evidence comparison and analysis is probably going to more convince me. Sometimes in politics shells, however, there seems to be a lack of internal links or quality of evidence overall.. Just make sure u are somewhat updated on ur politics uniqueness..seriously...please...

__**Performance/Project:**__ Only seen one performance team (Millard South, Brian Gonzaba and whoever he was with..).. i really think that performances are alright, but like them, u probably ought to affirm the res at the bare minimum and have some sort of evidence for ur performance in the 1ac.. but then again, that's all debatable... Whatever you do or defend, whether its framework or critical pedagogy etc, always maintain your vision.

__**Theory:**__ I loved running theory and having a good in-depth discussion on it, but judging it sucks generally because of how most debate it (lightning speed, just reading blocks instead of some comparison, sloppy techniques in general, etc..).. This really sets up for a really crappy flow on my part, and generally turns into a wash really fast. I.E., if you want to win on theory, don't just give me some generic block you printed off from some debate camp and think that it will win you the round. I want in-round specific examples as well as some analysis on both your/your opponents blocks. However, if u are getting screwed on either side and theory seems to be the only option: DO IT. Any form of predisposition is depending on each round.

__**Case:**__ Should be debated more and matter much more, but rarely gets touched due to many going 1 off or just completely ignoring it or not putting enough on it. A good neg can get 3-5 off, then put a good 3-4 minutes or more on case and really screw with the aff. If u want to go for a disad (w/ no cp), then u probably better be answering the affs advantage.

Anything other questions or more information? Just ask in round... I would be glad to further explain or answer questions.