Leva,+Jason

Overall I like deep arguments that are heavy in quality. I read the newspaper daily and do lots of research outside of debate, so I'd much rather hear an argument that is nuanced and detailed than a really big picture debate. For example, rather than a "heg good/heg bad" debate where heg is talked about as an abstract concept, I'd rather hear examples.

If you have some new position that your squad cut that wasn't at any camps, I'm the judge to run it in front of. I don't have a camp connection and never attended one in high school (our squad just put together our own camp). I really prefer smart arguments over trendy arguments.

As far as what the round will come down to, I will try to let the flow decide the round as much as possible. The only times when this becomes an issue is if there is an unresolved issue (like one team wants me to decide the round on timeframe and one on magnitude but neither tells me why I shouldn't defer to the other team's suggestions). In this case I will look at evidence and make my own judgement. If there is another way out of the round that is on the flow, though, I'll go that direction.

Disads/CP/Case - Run them. This is my favorite part of debate. I'd prefer a big net benefit debate to a small one, but that doesn't change the fact that small offense will win you a round. I prefer almost any CP to consult. The more case specific anything is, the better. I also take case debate seriously (you'll never hear me call it a "case dump"). I have before and love voting for teams on case arguments.

T - I enjoy a good T debate that focuses more on definition/violation and less on theory. That's not to say I don't understand the importance of theory, just that I'd rather see the debate come down to specifics like what is an alternative energy (is it based on emissions, products used in making the fuel, alternative to the most popular current form of energy, etc.). I also view T is more of a jurisdiction issue, so it's less offense/defense and more reasonability.

K - Must have an alt. I'm pretty good with K literature, but I don't want to construct these arguments for you. You need to prove to me in the round that you understand what you are talking about. Also, with a K, if it is pre-fiat then I need you to tell me and stick with it. I need to know where and when to evaluate these impacts and how.

Theory - This is my least favorite part of debate. I will only vote on in round abuse. If it is there and significant, then it doesn't take much convincing on your part to make a good argument on why the other team should be voted down.