Lou,+Maggie

I debated policy for four years at Kent Denver High School, but have not touched anything debate-related since I graduated last spring. Full disclosure: I know almost nothing about this year's topic, and while I will probably learn quickly, do not assume I know your abbreviations, no matter how prevalent they are on this year's circuit.

In high school, I was a pretty straight up debater who liked to run CP/DA strat on the neg and always had an aff with a plan text. I've had a good number of K debates as well, but my debating style was largely policy-oriented. I'm open to judging critical debates, but I am probably considerably less familiar with the literature than you are, so make sure you are extremely clearly warranting out your claims. That being said, debate what you're best at, and regardless of the type of argument I'll do my best to evaluate the debate as fairly as I can.


 * Meta Thoughts:** Tech over truth. I like line by line and impact calc. Don't clip cards, and on the subject of cheating, you don't need to take prep to flash, but no stealing prep.


 * Speed:** I was pretty fast in high school and could flow practically anything, but it's been a while, so slow down especially for the first couple of rounds.


 * Theory:** Don't just blindly read your blocks. If you're going to go for theory, go in depth on a couple standards and explain how they're relevant to your current round. I'm willing to vote on potential abuse if explained persuasively and realistically enough, but am more willing to vote on in-round abuse. Slow down for theory debates.


 * Topicality:** I default to competing interpretations. I really enjoyed T debates in high school and think they can be a lot of fun, but be sure to invest a sufficient amount explaining your argument because I'm not very familiar with what's generally accepted in the debate community for this topic.


 * Counterplans:** Huge fan - I feel like these are underutilized. PICs, advantage, conditions etc. are all fine.


 * DA:** Overviews are important, especially ones that include cards and turns case arguments. Both the aff and neg should explain how their impacts relate to the other team's.


 * Perms:** Perms are just a test of competition - convincing me to vote otherwise will be a tough sell. Be specific - don't just say something like "perm do both." Explain to me precisely what that looks like in the context of the aff and alternative/CP text, emphasizing this detail especially in later speeches.


 * Case:** I love a good case debate. I think the 1NC should always have a significant amount of case answers, even if just intelligent analytics. If the 1AC makes a bunch of grandiose claims with no evidence, make sure to point that out. I can be convinced of 0 or low risk of case, as advantages are often very contrived. If you are one of those aff teams with absurd internal links to 50 different terminal impacts, choose your best two internal link stories and get some evidence.

That being said, if you're aff and have a great 1AC, don't forget about it. Capitalize on the 8 minutes of evidence you read to respond to argumentss.


 * The K:** I need more explanation here than I would on a typical policy argument. If the style of your argument is designed to make it obscure and difficult to understand, I am not the judge for you. But if you warrant out your claims, do line-by-line (I'm not a huge fan of the big overview that kind of inexplicitly answers all the aff arguments), and clearly spell out how the alternative solves and how the impact implicates the aff, you have a great shot at winning.

If there's anything I missed, feel free to ask before round.