Paul Derby

Something said during cross examination is binding in the same way as something uttered during an actual speech.

Anything goes re: theory. I have voted both affirmative and negative at some point in the last seven years on any given theory issue. If there weren’t good arguments for both sides, doesn’t seem like it would be in controversy (ie a theory) anymore.

I hate listening to prewritten theory blocks.

I haven’t heard a good topicality argument in 46 debates this year.

I hold both teams responsible for the texts of (and omissions from) their plan, counterplan or permutation. These should be written out. When not written out, I assume the worst.

I encourage negatives to say one of the following five words at least three times during the debate: (1) Iraq (2) Iran (3) Cuba (4) Korea or (5) Syria. If they don’t fit in naturally, just lump them together at the very end of the 1NR.

Why does the affirmative always concede the internal link on Clinton?

A couple rules of thumb for me: (1) the more direct and common sense the connection between the affirmative plan and/or rhetoric and the negative argument, the more likely I am to vote on it, and (2) if you have to insert words from the topic into blank spaces in your 1NC argument, the less likely I am to vote on it.

I’ve heard so many times that I’m a bad kritik judge that I’m now willing to concede. I’m generally a bad judge on kritiks. Then again, if you have a link and an impact, I’ve always called it a disad.

I enjoy a debate that gets a little fiesty.

I hate acronyms.