Love,+Jesse

Love, Jesse 2015 jlovejr@umich.edu College debater 0 Stock Issues
 * Judge Name **
 * High School Graduation Year **
 * Judge Email **
 * How would you describe your Policy Debate experience? **
 * How many rounds have you judged on this year's topic? **
 * What is the best descriptor of your judging style for policy debate? **
 * Judge Preferences **
 * ** Rate of Delivery ** Moderate
 * ** Quality of Arguments ** Well Developed
 * **Topicality** Rarely
 * ** Counterplans **Sometimes acceptable
 * ** Generic Disadvantages ** Acceptable
 * **Conditional Negative Positions** Usually acceptable
 * **Debate Theory Arguments** Acceptable
 * ** Kritik Arguments ** Acceptable
 * Please indicate your overall judging paradigm. **

I think that my job as a job is to be impartial and allow the better debaters win doing what you're most comfortable with. The only thing I can say that I have a high distaste for is a topicality argument that has no real purpose. If it seems like the only response you have to the affs argument is that's it isn't topical then I'm probably not the best judge for you. If there is no very clear and specific departure from the resolution then T is not a voter for me. Also I'm a philosophy major, so critiques are more than welcomed if done correctly.

Current debater at the University of Michigan

Overall I think that you should just do what you do

T-I really dislike going for T and losing on T, but if presented well I will vote on it. With this years topic I think it's very feasible to go with a limits explosion argument as long as its well fleshed out and IMPACTED. If you go for T because you're losing everything else, you will lose.

CP - I generally think CP's are a good thing and going for Condo bad is an uphill battle, but can be won. I despise Consult CP's A LOT, and I think it only takes a little effort by the aff to convince me of that. Answer perms, explain the Net benefit, and you can win the round.

DA- They're great. Impact Calc is key though

K's/Non-plan affs- I'm a philosophy major so I love kritks. I do honestly believe that ontology comes before policy (if you want to know about why you can ask or email me jlovejr@umich.edu). Although I am familiar with this stuff doesn't give you a pass to not flesh out, explain, impact your kritik and clearly explain the role of my ballot. If you're neg and you go for the K in the 2NR you better be winning that your Alt. solves/is good or you will lose.

Framework - You can win/lose on framework

Theory - Usually a reason to reject the argument not the team, but I have to be told that. (FYI theory debates are usually boring but I'll suffer through and hear you out)

CX- You can define what this period means and I'll judge it accordingly

MISC.- be nice or you'll lose speaks don't be afraid to make logical arguments that don't necessarily have cards analytics are great and will give you more speaks (honestly debate logic is insane and if you can present a logical argument why not w/o cards I will evaluate it). I'm a 2N so I am very empathic to new args. presented in the 1AR and especially a 2AR. If you drop an argument don't pretend it didn't happen just explain to me why I should evaluate the current argument you are making and I'll take it into consideration.