Viray,+Adam

I was a high school policy debater in Montana and have finished a year of policy at Concordia College in Moorhead, MN.

I try to be a TR judge; all that matters to me is what happens in the round. Be polite in round. I am fine with whatever speed you are comfortable at, as long as you are clear. If you are not clear I will let you know; if you do not fix the issue, I will not flow what you say. Slow down and enunciate when reading tags, authors, and important parts of your arguments. Use cross-ex effectively; if you are just stalling for time, I may dock speaker points. Towards the end of the debate, I like to see impact weight calculus. If you are able to pick your arguments well and argue them effectively in the rebuttals, I am more likely to vote on them. Keep flashing time to a minimum, but I understand it may take time. Don't flash multiple documents for one speech - it should all be in one file.

Run whatever style you like. If you think it is a successful argument, and you can show me that it is, then it's fine. I like to see solid logical explanation of your arguments, not just evidence thrown together. Your arguments should not be derived from your evidence, but rather supported by it. Logical argumentation unsupported by evidence is also acceptable, as long as your logic is sound. I like to see a claim-warrant-impact progression, and a lack thereof will weaken your arguments in my eyes.

Good links are vital to success. If you cannot persuasively link your arguments, I will not vote on them.

If you run a K, make sure you explain how the affirmative links first and foremost. Be certain that you make it easy for me to understand what the world of the alternative looks like, and how the world of the alternative positively outweighs the world of the affirmative. If you can solve the impacts of the affirmative, it is likely I will vote on the K.

I like to see well-developed theory arguments. I believe theory is an a priori issue in the debate. Be sure you are clear and concise when running theory. If you speed through your block I may not be able to flow everything.

Topicality is a voter and an a priori issue. If you are running a K aff, make sure you have a T frontline in your 1AC; I have seen too many K affs that are borderline topical. If the negative can prove that the affirmative is untopical or extratopical, I will vote on it. However, if you are not confident you can prove this as the neg, don't waste your time or mine.

In my opinion, case-specific disadvantages make powerful arguments. I also like to see link and impact turns, just be careful of double-turns. When it comes to the impact debate, I want to see which impacts outweigh. As an example, if the advantages of the aff prevent nuclear war, and the aff links to a disad that causes nuclear war, it matters to me which nuclear war is worse.

If you have any questions at all I will answer them to the best of my ability before and after the debate. I try to be a lax judge. If you need to take a break to use the restroom or drink water, just let me know and leave your internet-capable devices in the room.