Wynn,+Sean

=Currently debate for OU. = = __**POLICY**__ = It's your round, do what you want to do. I am taking time out of my schedule(I really didn't have anything to do) to be here, so please don't waste my time.I hold all of my decisions sacred, and I hate when judges make illegit decisions and don't have a problem with it. There are a few things that can happen in round that will cause me to disregard what happened in the debate, but other than that I vote on what I hear, and sometimes see--not think. If I think something is illegitimate I will go for the speaker points, because they are subjective anyway and it allows me to still make an objective, and educated decision. I treat every round I judge as if it's finals, so I examine the flow like a crime scene. I outline everything in this philosophy, so please read it. If there is something in here that isn't covered please ask. Questions that are already answered within this paradigm need not be asked.
 * General:**

//__How I evaluate the round:__// I will evaluate it however I am told to within reason. (If you say vote neg because the aff isn't naked, I most likely won't.) I know this is vague, but I will try to make it much more clear below.
 * Specific:**

//__Preferred Arguments__//: I am not a liar, so I won't say I don't have biases. However, I make decisions based on the debate, not how much I hate your argument. I do prefer critical arguments, but I am very familiar with policy, and will be a policy maker if told to do so. If there is an argument I find inherently offensive, or ridiculous I won't factor that into my decision, but speaker points are a different issue.

//__Topicality:__// Knock it out. If a team is clearly topical, I would prefer you ran a more substantive argument, but I understand people enjoy it. The neg needs an interp, and it MUST have an impact. In order to sufficiently answer T, the aff has to either outweigh, or meet the interp. Put T first, because I would hate to give you a loss, because you only had 9 seconds to answer a bad T arg.

__//Other procedural arguments://__ I won't listen to 11 second theory blips, so if you really think you have an abuse story, make it an actual argument. I rarely vote on potential abuse, it is a ridiculous argument, outline a specific violation. Framework is fine, but I find it really only becomes something I vote for if it's not answered correctly. If it's sufficiently answered, and both teams have competing interpretations I rarely feel comfortable choosing one over the other. (example, if the negative's interp is "The Aff must present a stable text of a policy to be enacted by the USFG" and the Aff's is "The aff must present a stable text of what they advocate" I don't feel either one is more desirable than the other, from an objective standpoint. If both interps have clearly warranted impacts, I don't feel it's fair for a judge to ever say that they like one more than the other--so I will try not to, and I will probably vote somewhere else)

__//Dropped Arguments://__ Don't. Regardless of how fast another team is, there really isn't an excuse for absolutely dropping arguments, so I won't give you leeway. If something is dropped, and the other team sits on it, and impacts it very well I have no problem voting on a drop. If it's a 6 second theory argument, and the neg drops it I probably won't vote on it. The first question you should ask yourself after your speech to tell if it was a good spech is "Did I drop anything" if the answer is yes, it wasn't a good speech.

__//Evidence://__ Is only as important as it's made. I won't drop a team for having no evidence, and won't pick up a team for reading 80 cards in the 1NC. If one team is making an evidenced based argument, and the other team answering it without evidence I will call for the evidence after the round, and examine the warrants. I will call for evidence in other scenarios, probably every round, especially bad rounds. I encourage teams to use evidence, because it encourages better and more in-depth research. Coming from a school that was by no means affluent, I had to purchase my own membership to article databases, and it wasn't cheap. For that reason, I will not listen to an argument about qualifications of the author or source. Not every school has access to Project Muse, so don't be an asshole.

__//In Round Behavior//__: In terms of a decision, your behavior isn't important to me if you are a sweet high school student, and made me enjoy judging you. It becomes important when you act in a way that could be found offensive. **Cursing**-Don't care. I cursed in this philosophy, and I might slip up once or twice during my decision. Since you are in high school, you should probably check with the tournament rules first. If cursing is forbidden, I will adhere to the rules. Also, your coach might not be too pleased about you dropping the F bomb seventy times in your 1NR. There is also a line, I feel sometimes cursing is very effective for expressing emotion, but at a certain point you're just trying to sound cool, and speaks will suffer. **Any Ism(Racism, Sexism, etc.)-**Not tolerated. At all. I don't even think you should joke about something that could potentially be offensive. If the other team is offended, and the offender apologizes and from my point of view it didn't seem to be intentionally offensive, I will merely dock your speaks. Anything I think was intentional will get you a loss, zero speaks, a verbal chew out by me and a representative of the social group you offended, and I will give you the worst evil eye you've ever witnessed for the rest of the tournament. **Cheating**-You're outta here. I will try to have you removed from the pool, and banned from further competition(I don't have that kind of pull so it probably won't happen, but I'll try). **Elitism**-This will sound weird, but I would rather have two members of the KKK debating than a high schooler telling me how awesome they are, and how not awesome their oponents are. The line between funny jerk, and pompous asshole is very thin. The former gets you props, and maybe a 30. The latter gets you low speaks, and I will draw a mean picture on the ballot.

//__K's:__// Are really sexy. I am pretty versed in critical literature, and that's a double edged sword. If you are correctly explaining something, and the other team attempts to obfuscate things, I won't buy it, and you will get good speaks. However, if you bastardize an author's ideas consider your speaks nuked (I won't drop you, because I evaluate what's said, not what I think). A k without an alt isn't a k, so don't be dumb. (Reject the Aff will do, but it's somewhat abusive) Tell me how the alt functions, and what the world of the alternative looks like. Link,and and an impact are obviously necessary (Links of Omission are illegit, but they will suffice). Multiple worlds that conflict are a bad strategy to me, but it's your round. I am very perceptive to theory on this issue. To beat the K, the aff has to do one of a few things: Win a no link argument, Win that the case sufficiently outweighs, Win offense against the alternative, or make a permutation that is net beneficial. 1 card saying Heidegger was a nazi won't cut it.

//__CP's:__// Functionally the same as k's with regard to my threshold. I don't care, but I prefer functional competition, not just textual.

//__Performance:__// All for it, just make sure there is a reason for me to vote. While rapping for eight minutes is legit, and I would love that. You have to tell me how that functions, and why I vote for you.

//__Out of round advocacies:__// I think debates are a vacuum, and what happens in one round is over once I sign the ballot. I can be persuaded to see otherwise, but personally I feel advocating something out of round doesn't matter in round.

//__Speaker Points:__// These are the equivalent of style points in college football. They are nice, make you feel good, and look damn good....but at the end of the round all that should matter is a W or an L. I am very subjective with speaker points, but 99 percent of the time I award them based upon strategic decisions made in round, not if you pronounced Iran correctly. If you begin or end any speech with good rap lyrics (preferably weezy) I can't guarantee you a 30, but....

**__LD__**

 * One Night Stand:

"Sean, I don't have time to read your entire paradigm. What do I REALLY need to know?"** //I will default to viewing the resolution under a model of offense/defense. Go as fast as you want. Speaks are awarded by the quality of your debating not speaking, unless you speak awfully.//


 * Relationship:**

//It's your round, do whatever you want to, and just tell me what to vote for, you will have a good round.I will try my best not to intervene. I will work hard to adjudicate whichever round I am given. The judges I respect most are the ones who can divorce themselves from the round and render a decision independent of their biases. I will do my best to evaluate the round in this way. Given this, it would probably be better for you to avoid the following strategies: -Bullying,any violation of your opponent's basic human rights will result in your speaker points being trampled on by yours truly. -Beginning your speech at top speed. I won't drop you for this, but I just really don't like it. If you give all of your speeches at full out policy speed, there better be 185 unique arguments at the end of the round. -Making me do anything other than flow. I don't understand people using the term "the easy way out." As a debater you should make every way out an easy one for the judge. If I am forced to intervene I always vote for the person who looks the most worried about losing. It always makes for a dramatic oral critique.//
 * Sean Wynn, How do you judge the round?"**

//I don't have a preference.You should speak at a speed that is comfortable for you, I will be able to flow no matter how fast or slow you speak.I should warn you that every time I have to yell "CLEAR" you will lose speaks.//
 * "Sean, I really like to speak as fast. Is that a problem?"**

//It's whatever. I only ask that you explain your arguments not for my sake, for your opponent.However, please clearly explain your argument, and the assumptions it's making. I will be very hesitant to pick you up if you are deliberately confusing, and I will definitely dock your speaks.//
 * "Wynn, I enjoy running critical arguments. How do you feel about K's and critical authors?"**

//I can't lie I am not a fan of these type of procedural arguments, so you're not going to automatically get the ballot because you run theory or T. If there is abuse, then run them. If there isn't, then don't.//
 * "Rambro, I enjoy procedural arguments like Theory and Topicality. Is this a good strategy in front of you?"**

//I am willing to listen to anything, and won't disregard criticisms of theory or topicality.However, I am most receptive to debaters answering it straight up(No Abuse, Prove your interp is better).//
 * "Well if you allow them, what ways of approaching theory are you most receptive to?"**

//Well, I guess you don't NEED a standard. However, you should probably have some sort of evaluative framework to weigh your impacts, or hope your opponent is just as incompetent as you are for not having a standard.//
 * "Do I need a standard?"**

//Cash bribe.//
 * "I have never gotten lower than thirty speaker points in a round. What do I have to do to keep the streak going?"**

//Yea son. I wouldn't ever punish you for having offensive language on a case, but don't EVER lie...Since most debaters are conscientious objectors to clearly impacting arguments, I will call for contested cards, or portions of the case.//
 * "I lie about my evidence, and put racially insensitive insults atop all of my cases, should I be worried?"**

//Really stupid.//
 * "How stupid did you feel writing fake questions in your own paradigm?"**