Roth,+Troy

Roth, Troy George Washington University

I debated for 6 years (4 at Fort Lauderdale High, 1 at Florida State, and 1 at George Washington University) and have been judging for 4 years. I wont have any problems keeping up with you, but have not judged any rounds on the 2008-2009 resolution. Honestly, I feel its your time/money so please have fun and go for the args you like...consider me open to anything, That being said, here are a few thoughts:

T/Theory- I enjoy voting for a developed theory/topicalty claim. Make sure there is amble discussion throughout the debate on competing interpertations/reasonability, ground, predictability, limits, etc. It is important for these debates that you stick closely to the line by line and go beyond "extending" Roger Solt's theory blocks....please try as much as possible to avoid having a generic speech that could be recycled round after round.

Disads- Politics and tradeoffs are timeless, but specific DA's are even better. Weighing of impacts and comparison of evidence is important. Unless its warranted, I am not a fan of a bunch of new link/impact scenarios in the 2nc.

Counterplans- Not big on generic consults or conditional CP's (I will vote for them if they are run well, but I usually find them to be unintelligent args). Also, it is the negs obligation to take the time before the 1nc to write a CP text in its entirity...this helps me at the end of the round and textual competition could be part of the aff strategy in the 2ac. Make intelligent/diverse permutations (not just "do both").

K- I dont think the wierder it is, the better. A developed framework debate is important. Id say my one predisposition is that I dont feel that gender k's are a reason to reject a team. If you want to run a K dont run overtly contradictory args...it cant help your strategy if it also hurts your credibility....if you do insist on running things that dont ideologically mesh please have a better explanation than "they are on different levels."