Hanna,+Brandon

Overall: I don't have any specific predispositions regarding Topicality, Disads, Counterplans, Critiques, etc. I feel it is necessary for the debaters in the round to establish their own particular frameworks for discussion and how they interrelate and compete with one another, i.e. impact calculus. Whether its multiple nuclear war scenarios, a counterplan theory throwdown, competing interpretations vs potential abuse on topicality, or critiques vs anything; give me a framework to understand these arguments in and then discuss why I should prefer one over the other through weighing of their implications.

random side notes: I don't have a problem with speed, however, sacrificing clarity to me makes no sense. There's no need to read a dispo bad block with 10 separate reasons in 25 seconds, if I'm only going to get 3 or 4 of those reasons. These arguments are much harder to flow because they aren't evidence. In short, please give me a little pen time. I will let you know if I can't understand you. Also, I feel compelled to read cards after the round if there hasn't been adequate evidence comparison, or conversely, if there has been great evidence comparison and its necessary to see the cards for themselves. Other than that, I'd just say have fun and enjoy the intellectual sparring you've all trained for. But don't be malicious or flippant with the other team. It comes off as being rude and is just unnecessary. There's a difference between having debate ethos, a presence in the round, and being an arse. As with almost all other judges, if there are any specific questions that you have, please feel free to ask.