Bailey-Murray,+Langston

=//**Langston Bailey-Murray**//=

Edit History
2/20/15- Apparently people still run ASPEC. 3/7/15- Changed speaker point scale and removed some self-aggrandizement. 12/15/15- Added some topic-specific information and other small changes. 1/8/16- Changed my section on K's after judging a Deluze vs. Bataille debate and clarified the ASPEC section. 10/8/17- Added a note about my judge experience for Caucus, tweaked my speaker point scale, and added a contact email address.

=Caucus 2017 Update: I have not judged a round since like March 2016, have done no research on the topic, and only occasionally kept up with the debate community. Please take this into account when determining strategy and your style in front of me.=

**Background:**
I debated for three years(2011-2014) for the Iowa City West High debate team. I am currently a senior political science major at the University of Iowa.

Short Version
Be clear and specific on what you are arguing. If you explain your arguments in depth and clearly(both in terms of speaking clarity and argumentative clarity), I will vote on pretty much anything. My style of judging is most similar to Johnson, Megan. If you wouldn't pref her, you probably shouldn't pref me.

DAs, CPs, and Case Debate
This is my favorite form of debate. Please do these. In high school, I tended to go for DA's and Case the most. Please try to make your arguments specific to the case. While I don't have a strong dislike of politics or other generics, I just don't want to hear the same debate 6+ time in a weekend. Also, don't make me do the Impact Calc for you, as it probably won't go the way you think it will if I have to resolve all of the impacts myself.


 * Surveillance Topic**: Circumvention is probably solved by durable fiat. This doesn't mean that I won't vote on this argument, but it will be harder to get me to vote.

Kritiks/K Affs
I am probably not the best judge for kritikal debates. With very few exceptions it will be very difficult for K's to win my ballot. It's not that I have anything against the K, I actually find them quite interesting and strategic. I just haven't read the lit and a 40 minute crash course in Deluze probably isn't going to do all that much for my understanding which makes it hard to vote on your K. If you believe you can explain Deluze in the time you have, go ahead but keep this in mind.

Capitalism Neoliberalism Ableism Security Invisible Politics Taoism
 * List of Exceptions:**

For K affs, please have at least an advocacy statement. If you don't, I will be a whole lot more sympathetic towards F/W arguments.

Framework
While I am open to theoretical frameworks, I prefer a substantive framework debate. Unless told, I will default to a policy-making framework as I think it is slightly better for debate. But that doesn't mean I will always vote for a policy-making F/W.

ASPEC
Don't.

I don't think it's possible for an aff to not use all three branches of the government and cross-x checks most if not all offense on ASPEC.

T and Theory
While T and theory aren't my favorite arguments to judge in a debate you can still win my ballot. T and theory are like disads to me. Specificity and weighing your impacts against the other team is key when going for T in a debate. I tend to default to reasonability* unless you as the debaters tell me otherwise.

*You have to actually be reasonably within the topic for this to apply. Reasonability isn't a get out of jail free card for blatantly untopical affs.

Speaker Points
This is a rough outline of how I assign speaker points though I will try to follow it to the best of my ability. 29+ is an example of a legitimately perfect speech. 28.4-28.9 means you were pretty much perfect and I expect you to do well in the tournament. 27.7-28.3 is around my average for speaker points. 27.3-27.7 means you probably screwed something up in the debate or made a technical error that cost you the round but you did it well 26.9-24 is reserved for glaring technical errors or punitive measures.