Lewis,+Jacob

I am a college debater from Samford University in my fourth year.

I worked some on this topic over the summer, but haven't watched a lot of debates on it. Consider that before you go for a hyper-specific T violation or use a bunch of 5-letter acronyms. I don't have a tremendous amount of preconceptions about debate, and I am generally open minded to most arguments. As a debater, I have been mostly policy oriented, but am open to hearing other types of debate. Having said that, if you don't have a plan text, you're probably fighting an uphill battle. If the starting point for your argument is a criticism of debate as being fundamentally repressive, racist, or bad, it isn't impossible to win me, but I strongly disagree with your premise. A few more specific things:
 * __General__**

I am neutral on most theory issues, but am probably more Aff leaning on questions of CP legitimacy and competition. If the counterplan competes off of the certainty of the aff or encompasses ("steals") all of the aff, I am generally persuaded that said counterplan is unfair or abusive. The threshold for conditionality getting out of hand has a lot more to do with what those positions do than how many there are.
 * __Theory__**

I strongly believe that the debate should be decided by what happened during the round, and I will try to privilege the arguments I find extended clearly and effectively on the flow over evidence that is mindlessly extended without nuance. A few smart analytical arguments can overcome a heavily carded but poorly constructed Disad. Using strategic concessions will not only help your speaker points but will usually help you win the debate. Evidence indicts are a big plus for me, and assessing your opponents evidence in relation to your own will help me frame the debate when it is over. It is better for you initiate how I read their cards than to leave them up to interpretation.
 * __Tech vs. Style__**

I don't have a lot of experience going for the K, but I respect it as a part of a well-rounded Negative arsenal. I won't be familiar with the nuance of whatever high theory you are talking about so applying the general links you have to specific examples in aff evidence is a must. Similarly, impact comparison and why the alternative can solve (without resulting in) the case are very important to helping me understand your argument.
 * __Ks__**

My favorite judges have always been the ones that worked as hard deciding the debates as the debaters do debating them. As a judge I will try to reward specific evidence and thoughtful argumentation, and I will try to work as hard deciding the debate as you do competing in it. Be assertive and confident, but don't be mean or attack your opponent. I really appreciate humor, and a few good jokes always help ethos and points.
 * __Last thoughts__**