Colling,+Richard

==I am a policy maker. I want to know which side of the resolution creates the better world. I am open to kritiks but believe they should generally have an alternative to compare worlds. I will not reject Role of the Ballot arguments out of hand but ROB arguments that tell me that I am an "educator" have left me baffled as to how this empowers me to render a decision in the round as educating does not inherently mean that the person winning an extension necessarily wins. I am open to ROB positions but many more dots need to be connected for me to buy it such as how this guides my decision, why this means the debater wins, etc. I am open to almost any framing for which to evaluate rounds so this should not be interpreted to mean that I reject evaluating topical offense through a particular lens. It just means I do not think a debater wins a round simply for running role of the ballot/educator arguments nor do I understand how framing me as an educator means I vote for the debater doing this framing.==

== I believe that in many ways I am very traditional. I think the affirmative has a burden to prove the resolution true. To achieve this, the affirmative must provide a value and criterion that should act as a mechanism to evaluate the issues in the round. I see the criterion/standard as the means to achieve the value or goal. The affirmative should explain how each point impacts back to this standard. I believe the affirmative has a burden to prove the resolution true, but assume they have met this burden unless the negative proves otherwise. So, I do believe the negative has a burden of clash. That said, I think this is the only burden the negative has. The negative has complete freedom in how they want to negate (i.e. to present a case or not to present a case, run a kritik, run straight refutation, etc…). (I think it is wise to at least present a counter standard to evaluate your arguments, but not absolutely necessary. I also think it is wise for the negative to present a reason to negate as opposed to simply reasons not to affirm, but again, that is the choice of the debater.) I like new, clever, original arguments. I have come to the conclusion that few if any positions are abusive as one need only refute them. I am fine with spreading and speed, but I firmly believe that if I do not understand an argument, it is the debater’s fault and not mine. I am very unlikely to vote for arguments I find unclear or poorly developed. In other words, I will not do the work for you. I do not think it is persuasive to simply restate a claim and an author multiple times without explaining the warrant. I prefer to evaluate comparative arguments on the flow. ==

== I will vote down people who are rude, condescending, or disrespectful of their opponents regardless of the arguments on the flow. If both debaters act in this way, then I am forced to select a winner, but the speaker points for both will severely suffer. I do not think there is ever an excuse for poor sportsmanship and that this comes before anything else because I believe as a community we should be working to develop young people who are more then just technically clever debaters, but well rounded human beings. I find it very curious and contradictory when individuals argue from a perspective of showing basic human compassion and respect to all people while refusing to extend this courtesy to the other competitor in the room. ==

== I would like to stipulate that I am open to argumentation about all of this, except the behavior and arguments described above. I will evaluate the issues however the debaters ask me to evaluate the round. Failing any compelling arguments as per an alternative, the above is my default paradigm. ==