Watts,+Weston

Weston Watts - with Heritage Hall

Obvious - 1.) Usually its a pretty good idea to be respectful of everyone around you when I'm your judge 2.) Speed is good(or at least okay with me) 3.) You guys impose your arguments on me, not the other way around 4.) I'm not seeking truth. 5.) A few super good cards are better than a million super bad cards. 6.) Speaker points reflect a combination of mystical forces (how nice you are, how funny you were, how much i enjoyed your arguments, how you executed, how you spoke, how you hold you water bottle, how you drink out of it) - There isn't really 1 particular thing I look out for, but if you make the round awkward at any point, are overly aggressive, or do something mean I will probably take it out on you in the speaker points column. Refer to 1.).

Paradigm stuff -

Generally I think you should do whatever it is you are most comfortable with in debate. Generally, though, with any argument framing how I make my decision is very dependent on arguments made by the debaters - specifically tell me with as much nuance as possible how to evaluate every argument. I think I have a very high standard of evidence, and its up for the debaters in the last rebuttles to decide for me which cards I should choose (who knows, if you leave it up to me I might call for totally random evidence) - {slight specific disclaimer*-dont repeat over and over again, "star this card". . .}

T - I can't fathom a good T debate where some kind of "this is how you evaluate T moment" whether it be reasonability or competing interps, I like T - Affs should talk about the resolution.

CP/DA's - the more specific you are, the better. I love good specific strategies, and being overly generic is always discouraged. However, it is possible to make generic evidence apply using the powers of analysis and application. Big stick generic CPs and DAs probably aren't good arguments to answer an aff if you don't have very specific evidence. I don't like giant multiplanked CP's with no evidence, and ideally multiplanked CP's have on consistent solvency advocate or else they are usually pretty dumb. Kicking 1 plank and not the other should be exercised with caution.

K's - i dont think they destroy the activity so usually "we get to weigh our impacts" is more compelling than "dont evaluate the K". I ran K's in both high school and college, and I think if explained well certain critiques can be very persuasive, however, I probably have an even higher threshold for warranted explanation when it comes to Ks than I do when it comes to DAs and other things. Phrases like "ontology comes first" dont mean anything unless you explain why, and even if you do that, it doesn't mean anything unless you explain what that means. I absolutely hate it when people read poorly constructed, hodgepodge K's because they typically don't make any sense. That is not to say, however, that it is not possible to construct a "hodgepodge" that makes sense. Similarly, I hate it when people rely on "2AC a2: K's" files also.

Theory - I don't usually find myself voting on theory very often, and that's probably because people only go for theory when they are getting their asses handed to them nowadays. That being said, I think certain CP's (Conditions CP's, delay) have to do a good job defending their legitimacy in debate. That being said I went for consult a lot in high school, I just think theory needs to be executed well on the neg. I really don't like cheap shots (example - 2 argument conditionality blip in the 2ac consisting of "time and strategy skew, makes it impossible to answer. Justifies severence. . . " then all in on a severance permutation in 1ar because the block never said "doesn't justify severance" {ive seen this several times}.

True of any argument - -Impact analysis, and COMPARISON is at a premium. Think as big as you can, and make as many evidence comparisons you can. -Frame it relative to the other arguments in the debate. -CX is extremely cool. Lots can be done. Lots of speaker points can be earned. . . - Why does "Here's more evidence" never make any sense? If it doesn't make a unique warranted argument that is not made in another card, don't read it. If it does, put the unique warrant in the tag and don't say something dumb like "heres another moon link".