Forman,+Saul

I can be persuaded against these, but this is the way I generally think of debates

The quickest way to my ballot/heart is through comparisons – recognize what parts of the debate you’re losing and explain why the parts you’re winning are more important - Fairly familiar with the topic – only judged 4 rounds on it, but debated at six tournaments and attended camp for 7 weeks - Most of the young kids I judge are ridiculously unclear, so unless you’re willing to stake your speaks on it, go at about 80% – I promise it will communicate more to me – I enjoy hearing fewer, well explained issues earlier on rather than multiple, under-developed ones (I don’t like Ks that are FYIs in the 1nc and turn into 20 impact Ks in the 2nc) - Having to choose from non-specific strategies, I prefer politics/case d, a topic t arg, or a topic kritik to process counterplans and kritiks about death and omissions in the 1ac - Dropped cheap-shots are only game-changers if you explain how they impact the rest of the debate in the previous speech – otherwise new responses to that are justified – I will not vote on perms or negative fiat is a voting issue - K frameworks that change the decision from yes/no policy can be won, but requires dedicated comparison of the benefits to critical/problem-solving theory - Counterplans must compete solely off of the instrumental reading of the plan text – not some implied nature of fiat or strained reading of the resolution - if the counterplan proves the plan text is true, the Aff should win - only caveat - PICs that exclude a subset of the plan mechanism are competitive if the Aff does not clarify before the 1NC (perms that clarify the specifics of the Aff in reaction to Neg strategy aren't fair) I won't disincentivize someone from cutting these/frankly they're reasonably predictable and much more fun to judge than another Anthro round - Topicality to me is very compelling mainly for affs that do not increase exploitation (development v. conservation) – t-its is kinda silly and doesn’t allow a whole lot of affs, but if you can come up with a compelling caselist, be my guest - It’s easier to win a large risk of a DA when you are conclusively winning the link debate – uniqueness is a probabilistic prediction of the future that’s always tentative – winning the direction of change is the only way to guarantee offense, even if it’s only a small amount - I like jokes, but I also like taking speaks from people who make unfunny jokes at other people that make them feel bad - I think offense/defense is a strange way of viewing debate, given the lack of ability to view the future in absolute yes/no outcomes – because of the multiple variables in each step of a DA, “any risk” logic doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me - An argument has both an explanation of its validity (warrant) and of how it alters the way I think about the rest of the debate (impact) - Plan-less Affs: very susceptible to topicality – must have a defense of why the ballot is key
 * Short version/checklist:**

- I tend to appreciate the slow, smart debaters that make more comparisons than rapid-fire debaters that make so many arguments it comes at the expense of their explanation - Rocking back and forth, gasping, double breathing, and other abnormal speech patterns make me really nervous (I promise the fiat double-bind isn’t that important, you can stop shouting at me) - Basic scale – 29.2-29.5: one of the top 3 speakers at the tournament; 28.8-29.1: top 10 speakers at the tournament; 28.4-28.7: very good, expect to break; 27.9-28.3: pretty good, shows some competence, but lacking technical skills in other areas; 27.5-27.8: below average, lacking technical ability in more areas than not; 27.0-27.4: poor, doesn’t fully participate in the debate or exhibits one or two moments of comprehension; 26.9 and below: you were offensive – it doesn’t mean you are a bad person, but something you did was deeply unsettling or hurt someone else in the round
 * Speaker points:**

Prep time ends when you are done preparing your speech – I’m less cranky about this than most people, probably because I grew up with this, but time in-between speech construction and speech giving really shouldn’t be that long
 * Paperless (Subject to Tournament Rules):**