Culham,+Ed

//__THE SHORT VERSION (This is all you'll probably need to read)__//:
1) I am fine with most speed. If I can't understand you, I'll say clear. 2) Counter-plans, Ks, Disads, Spikes, and all similar arguments are all perfectly acceptable. 3) I don't need a value and criterion to weigh consequentialist arguments. I need at least a criterion or some special weighing mechanism to weigh deontological arguments. If no one tells me how to weigh, tangible impacts usually outweigh intangible impacts. 4) If you're going to run fairness or education based theory shells, there needs to be REAL abuse in the round. Some examples of real abuse: (a) Your opponent is not debating the resolution, (b) Your opponent's argument boils down to he/she wins no matter what you say. Some examples where real abuse is LACKING: (a) My opponent's argument is too hard to answer without theory, (b) Because my opponent isn't running the argument I have blocks against, so I'm running theory. --- I will vote on bad theory if it's dropped. I will also vote on compelling RVIs if the abuse the theory reacts against seems to be imagined.

This concludes the short version. The long version is just more detailed, but says the same thing as the short version.

//Credentials//.
My full name's Edward Culham (either Ed or Edward might appear on the ballot). I debated for 4 years in high school at Greenhill from 2005-2009. I did policy my first year and LD my last 3 years. I debated mostly on the TFA/NFL circuit. After I graduated, I worked helping coach debate for two schools in Waco, TX for a short time and judged and coached on the UIL/NFL circuit. I also did a very small amount of public forum, and judged it a few times. I graduated from Baylor University in 2013 with a major in Philosophy, and now go to SMU for law school.

// **Speed** // **.** The one question I get asked 9 out of 10 rounds is "**How are you with speed**?" I'd say if a 10 means being able to understand any speed, and a 1 being able to understand only up to normal conversational speech, **I'd score about a 7 out of 10**. If I am judging a debater **in a round where I am the only judge, I will say "clear"** if the debater is mumbling or going too fast, but only if the debater is going just too fast for me to understand //anything//. If I can understand even half of the speech, however, I will not tell the debater to slow down. **If I am judging on a panel, I will not say anything, even if I'm missing your entire speech. You'll see it happening, because I won't be flowing anything**. I will assume the debater is primarily going for the other judges on the panel (which will not bother me in the slightest), and will not remark on their speed. One more thing about speed: **logically,** **the faster you go, the more likely I am to miss something**. If you're making a critical argument, either make an obvious effort to slow down to ensure I get it, or say it multiple times and tell me how critical it is. Speed at your own risk.

//Preferred weighing method.//
In LD the traditional weighing method requires a value and a criterion with the contentions supporting the criterion and the criterion supporting the value. I have known judges who simply would not vote for someone without a criterion or value, which is their prerogative. For me, I don't need a value, I don't need a criterion. **I just need a weighing mechanism**. I need some way to evaluate your arguments. Some arguments (such as, "My opponent's impact is 100 people dying. My impact is 1000 people dying") are easy to weigh. **Body count is an easy argument for me to weigh without a value or criterion.** Arguments like, "You must be definitional, and my opponent's case violates my definition of the word 'democracy'" are not easy to weigh without a value or criterion. I don't need a traditional weighing mechanism, but **if your impact argument doesn't have an obvious impact, be extremely clear about your weighing mechanism or your argument may not get weighed at all.**

//Favored arguments//.
I prefer policy making and weighing impacts to truth testing. HOWEVER, I like hearing creative cases. Stock issue cases are fine, but if you've got a case that you think is very strategic, I'm probably going to prefer that case out of the AC (or NC) over a stock issue case. Having a cool case won't win you the round, though. But, if you write a case in such a way as to be, for example, a positional takeout to your opponent's case, and your opponent doesn't understand your case (and I do) your chances of winning are probably pretty good. I liked writing my own cases as a debater. Some were better than others. Most of them weren't like what other people were running. I will prefer a creative and strategic truth testing case over a stock issue policy making case. To be very clear: my preferring a style of case does not mean I am going to vote for it. I vote for who I think did the better debating. But if you've got two versions of your case in your files, and you're comfortable with both of them, I'm probably going to prefer the creative case over the stock issue case out of the gate.

//Disfavored arguments.//
I have a very high standard for evaluating theory arguments. **If your first response to a tough argument is "This argument is too hard so I'm running theory" you will likely lose that argument.** **If your opponent makes a good RVI** on that argument, **I'm perfectly happy to vote on that RVI**. About the only time you should be running theory is when your opponent's case literally has nothing to do with the resolution. And in that case, you probably don't even need a theory shell. You can make a normal argument that your opponent isn't affirming/negating. If your opponent isn't debating the resolution, and you run a SPECIFIC theory argument as to why YOUR OPPONENT SPECIFICALLY is not topical, I will evaluate that argument very carefully. If the resolution is Compulsory Voting, and your opponent is debating the death penalty, that's a pretty obvious topicality violation. If you really do think your opponent is being grossly unfair, however, feel free to run theory. Just make it GOOD theory. Run something that's well put together and doesn't sound like every single theory shell I've heard before. The better your argument, the more likely I am to vote for it. //**Exception:**//
 * Update (as of 9/12/14):** If your opponent is running arguments like "The resolution is flawed so you must vote for me" or any other indict of something that "automatically" means he or she wins the round, that's a good time to run theory. Any arguments that somehow means a certain side wins the round regardless of what the other side does are prime territory for legitimate theory.

//Calling Cards.//
I am not opposed to calling cards after the round is over. If there is a card in the round that is of importance to my decision, I may call the card. I could call the card for any of the following reasons: 1) I have a general outline of the card in my notes and want clearer details. 2) The card's validity (or credibility) is called into question and I want to read the fine print and see what the card actually says to resolve the issue. 3) The card was a key issue in the round and/or was contested, and I have no idea what it says. 4) The card was used in weighing, and I want to see it's precise language. I will weigh my evaluation of the card into the decision. All this said, I will not call dictum from the debater. If the debater has non-evidence language in their case and I miss it, I will not be calling the case to check it. I will only evaluate cut evidence after the round, not dictum. __//**On this next note, I have changed my judging philosophy lately**//__: If you are running mis-cut evidence, and I call it and see that, I'm going to throw it out. Regardless of whether the other debater mentioned it. This is about the only judge intervention I will do every time. For example, if you are running evidence that SAYS "The impact is POTENTIALLY 1000 victims" and you are running it AS IF IT SAYS "The impact IS 1000 victims," it's getting tossed. I won't drop the debater over mis-cut evidence (because I will err that it was just careless error, and not malicious error), but I will drop the evidence.

=__**//Summary//**__.= Speed at your own risk. I have heard debaters going very fast whom I could flow very well, and I have heard debaters going fast who I could not understand one bit. The faster you go, the clearer you need to be. I will vote on almost any argument, with the likely exception of "his/her argument is too hard so I'm running theory about why good arguments are bad for debate." I need a way to weigh the round. I do not require a traditional weighing method. I prefer creative and strategic arguments, but I will **consider** any argument. I do not like theory in general. I //do// like theoretical arguments. If you're running a generic shell in front of me, the violation better be more obvious than the sun in the sky on a clear day if you want me to evaluate it before the rest of the arguments in the round. If you are running an RVI on bad theory, that's a different story. This does not apply to topicality arguments (for the most part). If you opponent is blatantly non-topical, and you make specific arguments on that point, I will weigh them carefully. I do not like fairness as a voter. Be careful with it. What you consider "unfair" I probably consider "strategic." If you argue fairness, it needs to be specific to why your opponent's exact argument is unfair. Not why you should have an easy round. I will call cards after the round if I find it necessary or helpful to me. If you've mis-cut the evidence and I see that, your evidence is probably getting tossed.

I disclose and give an RFD after the round, and I try to list detailed reasons for my decision on the ballot itself so it will be easy for a debater's coach to read my ballot and see why I voted the way I did. I am happy to answer any questions after the round about my decision. Thanks for taking the time to read all this.