Aubrey Harris

Wm. Jewell College

I have not judged any rounds this year. However, I have spent the past

four years actively involved in the debate community. Currently I am working in

the Senate on defense, international relations and human rights legislation.

So, I am not up on the cases and negative strategies but I do know about the

real world policies involved with the topic. As for a basic philosophy I am

open to any argument you want to go for (barring anything blatantly offensive).

Affirmative Approaches: Being topical is a good thing. Other than that and

having an advantage I am open to your strategy.

Negative Approaches: You can use whatever you have in your arsenal that is

relevant and effective. I have no specific dislikes in this arena.

Topicality: Topicality is a check for abuse in the debate. It can be over

used, this is obnoxious. As long as there is clean debate on the issue then it

is fine.

Evidence: If their is a challenge to a piece of evidence then I will

probably call for it at the end of the round. These disputes must be made and

handled carefully. You have to be able to back up your argument.

Cross-Examination: Tag-team is fine, I do not flow and I do not bind

people to CX statements. If something important happens in the CX then it should be