Lack,+Reuben


 * Reuben Lack**
 * Alpharetta High School '12**
 * Emory University '15**

The 2015-2016 high school surveillance topic is my 8th year in the debate world. I debated for four years at Alpharetta, qualifying to the TOC in my senior year, before debating for Emory University.

Whether you enjoy heg turns, one-off K's, or a politics debate, my advice if you have me in the back of the room is to do what you do best. My comments below are self-reflective thoughts on my judging; I hope they'll help you get a sense of how I make my decisions. Please feel free to shoot me an email at reubenlack1@gmail.com.

I've run everything from super 'policy' affs to 1ACs that consisted largely of a poem and hard-leftist arguments. Because of my college experience with David Mullins, I feel I have a proclivity towards kritikal arguments, at least to an extent. At the same time, I'll pull the trigger on framework against a critical aff if the necessary work's done. I feel that arguments on framework should focus on the purported educational implications of each side's approaches.
 * 1.) Kritiks/Critical Affs/Performance**

I'm truly torn on a lot of these issues, so I think of myself as a 'middle-of-the-road' judge. My early debate history was, after all, going for politics or counterplans, even if I've recently been on the other side of the spectrum.

There's a lot of educationally unsound things that happen in rounds; I wish more teams called each other out on them. Two conditional worlds is probably okay, but I'm not opposed to striking the neg down with righteous lightening if so persuaded. Other theory arguments are more difficult to win in front of me. I don't think this is because the arguments themselves are bad, it's simply the Aff/Neg usually fails to properly impact why the 'violation' requires rejecting the team.
 * 2.) Theory**

My senior year was almost exclusively me taking that week's Politics DA in the 1NR. A good neg block speech on Politics, especially when it contains in-depth evidence comparison, will get you high points from me. Same goes for an Aff that has the guts to put all their firepower against one logical hole in the DA. Zero risk of the disad is an RFD I've given.
 * 3.) Politics DAs**

I enjoy T debates and I'm disappointed so many judges hate on it. Feel confident making T an option with me, same as you would Politics or the K. Reasonability is hard to win, but strong counter-interpretations from the aff are underrated.
 * 4.) Topicality**

When the round ends, I take a note of all the key questions for me to resolve, then work through them one-by-one. I rarely call for cards; only if I'm truly confused about something or a card's warrants are highly contested will I ask for it. Smart analytics will always have more weight with me than a bad card. In fact, kids who show their smarts will get good speaks in front of me, even if the debater is making technical mistakes in their speeches.
 * 5.) Decision Process & Argumentation**

The best K 2NCs, just like good CP or DA neg blocks, all require analysis and warrant comparison. I'd much prefer a 2NC with lots of smart, awesome explanation and argumentation rather than a slew of cards you'll forget in the 2NR.

If I have the privilege of judging you, I wish you the best of luck and hope my feedback will help for future rounds. I love the activity and the fantastically cool people in it. I’ll do whatever I can do to support you and help you grow as a debater.
 * 6.) Concluding Thoughts**