General: Like the majority of judges in the nation will probably say- I don't have much of a philosophy. I really try as hard as I can to let debaters do the debating and let the arguments of those in the round dictate what is important and what is not important. I suppose I'll probably read cards after the round (if history is a guide)- but will be reluctant to let the evidence make arguments that you didn't make for it. There have been very few round where I've changed my mind about a decision after reading evidence- which probably tells you a lot about how much importance I give YOUR analysis and use of the evidence in the round. The round is really in your hands- do with it as you like.

Counterplans: I hate writing anything under this category. I have a lot of thoughts about theoretical issues on counterplans and other things but as mentioned above I don't think those should influence whether you win or lose or a debate round. I suppose I have a general predisposition that counterplans can be conditional and plan inclusive- but please feel free to go for those arguments on the affirmative- when teams have done that this year I'm more likely than not to side affirmative.

Topicality: Not much to say here. I've seen one topicality round all year. I think good topicality arguments for the negative probably center around the terms "including" and "constructive engagement." I think topicality should begin with a question of interpretations and what those interpretations mean for competitive equity. For me every theory issue in debate comes back to that question- I don't think necessarily everything has to be reciprocal- but rather a general equity has to exist. What does that mean? I'll let you decide that in the debate.

Kritiks/Critiques: I vote for them a lot it seems. I like to let the debaters debate and decide the role of the activity and the judge (doesn't that seem paradoxical with the view that the ballot can be an intellectual tool or a sign of solidarity?) Anyway, you should know the standard revelations here- they should link, you should talk about the affirmative, and you should assess the ultimate impact (brilliant insight I know.) In instances in which the affirmative loses that the negative has to defend the status quo and that questions of inevitability aren't important I'll probably be voting negative 95% of the time.