Powell,+Charles

**Current Role**: Operations Director, Debate RI
 * Past Policy Debate Experience ** : 2-3 years for Clear Lake HS in Houston
 * Previous Role ** : Coach, Rhode Island Urban Debate League
 * Strikes ** : Clear Lake HS (Texas), Classical HS (Rhode Island), Mt. Pleasant HS (Rhode Island), Davies HS (Rhode Island), LaSalle HS (Rhode Island), JSEC (Rhode Island)

I'm Charlie, and please call me that instead of "judge".

If there are any questions you have that aren’t answered below, feel free to ask before the round.

Okay, for the real **business**.

Things I vote on:
 * IMPACTS **// . I really don't care about anything unless it's adequately impacted // . This holds for just about every argument.

- Marking my flow in any specific ways, for specific reasons. - Telling me how to vote // Relevant aside: please impact everything. Every flow can have an impact, and I want to hear it. Also, I will love you if you give me a killer over-/under-view that summarizes all of the impacts in the debate and how I should consider them in my ballot. Comparative analysis ftw. //
 * __ I. __** In general, I expect competitors to //tell me explicitly what to do//. This includes, but is not limited to:

- I won't do any work for you. If you leave me no choice, speaks are low and nobody is happy. - I won't give you time signals. That is, unless you'd like me to be more focused on timing than flowing.
 * __ II __** . Things I won't do:

- I //will// disclose decisions - I //will// request evidence upon three conditions: 1. A debater has asked explicitly asked for me to review evidence, especially if much of the debate hinges on evidence comparison. If you choose to do this, please give me explicit instructions on what to look for. 2. I'm genuinely interested in the material, or I want the cites for my own kiddos 3. Any accusation of card-clipping/power-tagging. - I //will// yell "clear" midspeech if I'm having difficulty discerning words. - I //will// vote you down/destroy your speaks if you are actively disrespectful to your partner, opponents, or to me. Debate is supposed to be educational and fun, don't ruin that.
 * __ III __**** . ** Things I will do:

- Impact calculuses (calculi?) - Good, old fashioned evidence comparison - Line by line, straight down/up the flow. - Did I mention //impacts?// - //Useful// CXes. Please use this time to do meaningful things. //You can seriously shape the round with CX, don't waste this time!// - Jokes. Jokes are fun. - Clarity
 * __ IV. __** Likes:

- Blippy arguments. //Especially T/Framework/Theory blocks. Please give me in-depth analysis if you want me to seriously consider those flows.// - Prep stealing. //Additionally, I hate card-clipping and deliberate misrepresentation of evidence. Respect debate, don't be disingenuous.// - Being grouchy and mean. - Extending arguments by saying "extend this argument", without an actual justification on the usefulness/impact of that extension.
 * __ V. __** Dislikes


 * __ VI. __** Argument specifics

I actively try to keep neutral, and evaluate arguments fairly. Of course, realistically, that's not always the case. Below are my self-assessed biases.

T: I can dig it. However, since I'm no longer competitively debating, my flowing has suffered. Please //slow down and give me a full second between numbers/bullets.// //Else, your arguments may not get flowed.// **//I fully realize that this handicaps the NEG. Sorry about that.//** CP: Kosher. // Relevant aside: Condo? I've voted on it before, but I'd rather not. If you think it's a reasonable arg to make at the time, then go for it. // K: Not particularly versed in the lit, so you could probably fool me into believing whatever. Will vote on it, but explain your K clearly. Err on the side of "this judge doesn't know what he's talking about, so I better explain it to him like he's a fifth grader". // Relevant aside: FW is evaluated before your K, don’t drop it. // DA: Do it. Case offense: underutilized and extremely powerful. FW/Theory: See "//slow down//" note I had about T.


 * Performance or k-aff? ** Cool, I'd vote on it. But just because it’s a performance doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have impacts.

__**VII.**__ Speaks

Speaker points are decided in the following way: 1. Avg = 27.5 2. Higher points given to better debaters, //especially those who help me keep pretty flows// 3 // . // Lower points will be given if I have to shout "clear" more than once 4. I said this above, but your points will be //destroyed// if you are rude or disrespectful to anyone in the room. 5. Good analysis/impact calc/organization is rewarded. 6. I’m old-school – I use paper flows and paper ev. If you stumble in a speech due to electronic troubles, I’m not particularly merciful.

__**VIII.**__ On laptops. When flashing evidence, I expect you not to be prepping. I may enforce a "hands up" rule to ensure nobody is making notes or otherwise prepping during the flash. Also, having the evidence on your laptop is no excuse not to flow. It's pretty easy to tell when debaters don't flow - my favorite is when you respond to arguments that were never read.