Lowery,+Chris

Head Coach of Chesterton High School's policy and public forum teams.

Been involved in High School Debate for 18 years as a former debater, judge, and coach.

I'm not an avid fan of circuit debate, but will adapt relatively well to the round. I tend to function pretty clearly as a policy option judge, although I don't tend to focus purely on magnitude. Links and realism within your argument matter to me and is where I would like a lot of the debate to occur.

I will be able to handle speed and won't punish you for it, but I prefer debate to done at a 'medium' speed. I don't yell clear, nor try to involve myself too much in the round and prefer that the debaters clarify evidence issues instead of calling for the cards myself.

CPs are fine although I do expect them to compete through more than just net benefits/redundancy and believe that there should be a clear compelling reason as to why the CP and Case can't be done simultaneously.

I will listen to a K, but I will evaluate it in the round, not with out of round impacts. I am a policy maker and believe that the round should be focused on that. That means that I will weigh cap or neo-lib, but I am going to do it against the in round impacts of the affirmative.

I have no problem with T and actually enjoy a good T debate. I will not penalize a neg team for going for more than T in the 2nr, and actually think that the neg should carry through at least two exit strategies for the round.

Fine with Tag-Team CX, although one partner should not dominate.

Prompting - I have no problem with handing your partner something or even calling out "go on" - I hate the game of partner says xyz and then speaker says xyz. Again I won't base a decision on this, but it annoys me