Flowers,+Chris


 * Overview:**

Every debate is a performance.

Tech is usually a pre-req. for truth in debate. Truth applied technically over everything.

I don't think I really hack for any particular argument or strategy. I try to be objective. If you want a judge who will listen, read your evidence along with you, take notes in CX you should feel good about preffing me.


 * for the chain:** chrispaulflowers@gmail.com

**Affiliation:** Cabot; DoD and coach

**Framework:** Better debaters will win clash of civ debates in front of me. Framework teams have made persuasive arguments that I'll vote on. I do generally believe there are a variety of affs that should be considered debatable as someone who values debate as a progressive and academic activity. Teams should make an earnest attempt to engage all Affirmatives, especially ones that are disclosed or are written from large bodies of easily accesible philosophical literature and are in the direction of the topic.

**Kritiks:** It's just as necessary for teams to defend their methodologies, assumptions, language etc. as a test to the viability/preferability of their advocacy as it is for them to defend post-fiat implications as a result of their advocacy.

**Topicality:** Topicality is a necessary check against affs that unfairly limit ground or significantly hinder the educational value of debate. Demonstrable abuse either in-round or out should be clearly articulated by neg teams.

**Theory:** Neg can be as conditional as they are good theory debaters. Generally, a conditional advocacy or two plus the status quo is a fair starting point for neg strats, but like, I'm not going to stop flowing if you move beyond this. AFF teams should just trust me enough to know that I'll vote on theory if they win the impact/abuse story.

**DA/CP:** All my novice read disad/cps and defend a plan implemented by the usfg. I have experience judging these debates and good ones are fun to judge. I really do try and remain objective on whether the variety of cps are fair or not. I would suggest for AFF teams to decide if they're going to beat the argument or win the theoretical objection to it and focus their energy towards winning those warrants.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Judging/Flowing/Speaks:** Be comparative in your analysis. Read as fast as you can be clear. Slow down/be rhetorically distinctive on taglines and cites. Rhetorically highlight warrants, make stuff stand out in your delivery. Do something different, be bold or don't. The debate is yours.