Schmitz,Kurt

Affiliations:  Samford University [AL] Huntsville High School [AL] Grapevine High School [TX] I enter the round as a prima fascia policy maker. My preference is to accept the resolution or reject the resolution. I will however rapidly adopt other judging paradigms introduced during the course of the debate, as long as you convince me that you understand the theory and that the model is fair for both teams. Over the years I have voted using games model/competitiveness, hypothesis testing, policy making, Kritik, and possibly some others
 * Kurt Schmitz**
 * Judging Paradigms/Preferences: **

Certain strategies have prima fascia burdens of their own that must be overcome before I will agree to weigh them (its only fair since I start the round as a prima fascia policy maker and won’t even consider the Aff plan if it does not overcome classic prima fascia burdens.) For example, Counter plans must be mutually exclusive. Kritiks are not immune to permutations, so the advocate must demonstrate that the Kritik in question cannot be solved by fiat at the same time as the plan (or counter-plan). Topicality run by the NEG, creates a counter-topicality burden on Negative DisAds (don’t advocate a standard you are unwilling to adhere to yourself.) However, I tend to rapidly accept reasonableness defenses on topicality in all directions when stock cases and issues are in question. Speaker points will be higher if you actually clash on the resolution. If one or the other side gets sidelined in an extra-topical Advantage, Dis-Ad or Philosophy, then it may cost you speaker points (though I'll still weigh the arguments on their merit in deciding who gets the win.) A mainstream AFF countered by the NEG on issues which directly relate to this years topic will maximize "speaks" for both teams. For example, budget deficit or politics Adds/disads typically don't directly relate to the subject area of the topic and are not my favorite.