Staats,+Eric

Staats, Eric 2015 eric.tyler.staats1@gmail.com Coach a team, High School debater, College debater, Frequently judge 40 Games Player I debated for three years in high school for Portage Northern, and currently debate for Michigan State.
 * 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 ** Fast
 * ** Quality of Arguments ** Well Developed
 * **Topicality** Moderately rarely
 * ** Counterplans ** Acceptable
 * ** Generic Disadvantages ** Acceptable
 * **Conditional Negative Positions** Acceptable
 * **Debate Theory Arguments** Sometimes acceptable
 * ** Kritik Arguments ** Acceptable
 * Please indicate your overall judging paradigm. **

I am, in general, fine with any kind of argument. There are a few things I like/you should know in regards to each kind of arguments.

Topicality: I am not, and have never been, particularly a fan of T. I really think that, for the most part, things like the caselist and generic cp/da links mitigate the vast majority of abuse on the part of the affirmative, and I would much rather listen to a debate about the substance of the affirmative rather than sit and listen to different interpretations of the resolution.

Disads: I don't really have much to say here, beyond the need to stress strong impact work on the bottom of the flow for both the negative and the affirmative.

Counterplans: I love counterplans in all forms. I think that my threshold for general counterplan theory is very high, getting me to vote on PICS bad or Process bad is going to be an uphill battle. If the net benefit to the counterplan is not a disad, but rather a non-mutually exclusive part of the cp, I need enough analysis there to vote on the perm do both. I think that those kinds of net benefits need an impact of some kind,

Kritiks: In high school, I was more kritikal than I currently am. I will still vote on kritiks and kritikal affirmatives, and I think they are a massively important part of policy debate, but know that I may not be speccifically familiar with many forms of critical literature, especcially higher theory. Feel free to clarify before the round. I'm also not a fan of novices running kritiks until a bit later in the year.

Condo: I think that my preferred limit for the neg is two conditional advocacies. That doesn't mean I'll always vote you down on condo abuse if you run three, but I think it would be very hard for me to vote down a team for running two or less conditional advocacies.