Nasr,+Alex

I was a debater at Colleyville Heritage HS for four years on the national circuit. I probably judged about 30 rounds last year on the military presence topic. I have a general knowledge of the topic but not a detailed one so be aware of that if you debate in front of me.

I don't judge based on personal predispositions to various arguments. Debate the argument in a coherent and persuasive manner and I will have no problem voting for it. Speed is not an issue as long as you are understandable. Evidence quality is obviously important but I also put considerable weight into well-warranted and well-articulated arguments. I won't use good evidence to make arguments for you that you didn't make in the debate. I have no problem looking at evidence but I prefer the debaters to be the ones making good analysis and comparison of evidence. I like debates to be light-hearted and I enjoy humor but don't interpret that as permission to be rude or aggressive toward other people.

As for particular arguments:

Topicality is a perfectly fine argument with me. I think there is the potential for great topicality debates if argued well but it can also devolve into shallow 2AC blips and snippy negative extensions. Words like "abuse" hold little meaning to me. I prefer substantive impact claims about how the topic would be structured under your interpretation and what that would mean for both the affirmative and negative. Affs that kritik T or don't defend the resolution are not very persuasive to me but I guess if the other team won't answer it or is no good at answering it I will vote for it. I think competing interpretations is a good paradigm for topicality but I'll admit that having been a 2A I'm persuaded by a reasonable interpretation in cases where the negative interpretation is arbitrary.
 * __Topicality__**

Counterplan debates are probably among my most favorite to judge. I think they're incredibly strategic, PICs in particular, and will listen to any type of CP. I do not mind theory debates as long as they are well argued. I'll probably lean more negative on theory issues. Like with Topicality, things like abuse seem arbitrary to me and I prefer meaningful discussions of what the impacts are for both sides. Conditional CPs and multiple CPs are usually fine with me, and 2NC counterplans are legitimate as a response to things like add-ons. However, I do think arguments against process counterplans can be persuasive so those will require a little time investment by the negative to defend those. Also make sure there's clear competition and a reasonable net benefit for the CP.
 * __Counterplans__**

I am a big fan of disads so please run them. More specific they are to the aff, the better. I frequently read politics DAs in high school but I realize the list of problems they can have. Offense is always important for affirmatives but defense is often underutilized. I am willing to vote that there is no risk of a disadvantage if the affirmative adequately proves that the DA doesn't make sense.
 * __DAs__**

I'll freely admit that a CP/DA or DA/case debate is more appealing to me but I do not mind critical arguments. I am not very well-read in critical literature like a lot of other judges but I know enough about the general ones. More abstract Ks will require more explanation. I do enjoy topic/aff-specific Ks. I think a proper K will clearly isolate the links to the affirmative with significant impacts (external impacts are a plus) and a good discussion of why the alternative/framework is superior. I also think critical arguments as a net benefit to a counterplan can be strategic.
 * __Ks__**

Please feel free to ask me questions if I didn't address something of importance to you or if you wish for me to elaborate further on something.