Fortin,+Danielle

Background: I was involved as a policy debater in high school. I also took part in Student Congress and extemporaneous speaking during the forensics season for all four years. I've spent this year judging novice policy, and as I'm one year out, will continue to do so, at least for the time being.

As far as my paradigm goes, policy with a strong look at stock issues. To clarify, I'd love to see teams examine and debate stock issues, but if the aff loses one stock issue but the debate is leaning overwhelmingly aff, I'll still give the affs the win. At the end of the debate, I'm looking for the teams to prove a net benefit to enacting the plan (aff) or a net loss (neg). This opens the floor for teams to acknowledge that even if they did lose one particular argument, they still win because there's an overall net gain/loss to their side of the argument. Spell it out in the rebuttal- I judge based on what is said and analyzed. I understand the arguments, but I need to know that the teams do as well.

Topicality: I'm not a fan of topicality arguments, but will vote on them. If a plan //truly// does not fall under the resolution, run it. Otherwise, it's a waste of everyone's time. Note: If topicality is something that needs to be run... do it properly. Make it a voter.

Kritiques: Again, I'm not a fan of these types of arguments, as they can be difficult to weigh against policy considerations.

Counter Plans: CPs should be untopical and competitive. Negs, make sure they avoid the impacts of whatever DAs you run. Otherwise, I don't particularly like or dislike them.

Disadvantages/Advantages: I like these a lot, as they give me impacts to consider.

Other notes: -Speed is okay, as long as you are clear. -Open CX is fine with me, as long as both sides are respectful to one another. Side note here: the two debaters who are supposed to be participating in the CX should be doing the majority of the talking. I'll dock speaker points if they are standing up there silent as their partners go at it.