Schurevich,+Aarron

LAST UPDATED: 10/11/17

UNIVERSAL NOTE BEFORE EVENT SPECIFIC NOTES I will not vote on any case arguments addressing sexual violence or rape that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll be very receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote against you based on the introduction of that issue.

UPDATE: I haven't judged a ton the past few seasons. I've been spending more and more tournaments in tabrooms and less and less time at those tournaments adjudicating debates. As such, my flow skills are not as sharp as they have been in the past. Even more than usual, I am not the judge for blippy, super intricate, card-dump debates. First and foremost, I don't like that style of debate, but more importantly, I'm not going to be as good at evaluating it these days. If an argument matters, the debater needs to ensure I actually know it matters by spending time on explaining how it functions and why it is critical. (Updated: 10/6/17)

__** PUBLIC FORUM **__
__NOVEMBER NOTE__ My note above indicates my expectations about arguments relating to and/or addressing sexual violence, but given the sensitive nature of self-harm and suicide argumentation, I will be applying the same standard on arguments relating to those issues. I expect debaters to provide a trigger warning prior to reading arguments about suicide and for the issue to be handled delicately. Without a trigger warning being provided for an argument about suicide, I will not vote on it. To echo my sentiments on sexual violence issues, if upon hearing a trigger warning, your opponent requests the argument not be made and you deny their request, I'll be very receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote against you based on the introduction of that issue.

I judge PF more often than anything else, and it's the source of the majority of my training and experience.

__GENERAL NOTE__ I would be extremely excited and happy to see something unconventional (plan, kritik, etc.). If you want to go off the beaten path, I need you to be able to argumentatively justify your approach (Why is a plan good for PF? Why is your K important, especially in this event?) when you're inevitably pressed. The flip side of this is that I'll be at least receptive to theory arguments against these case strats if your opponents deem it necessary. For instance, if you run a specific plan, I'd listen to a theory argument about disclosure since disclosure has become a norm where plan debate exists otherwise.

I caution, however: by absolutely no means do I intend to indicate that I would like to see a case you're running that you're just running //for the lulz//. For the love of all that is holy, do not run a joke/meme case in front of me; you will be able to see the dissatisfaction in my immediate reaction and in the resultant mushroom cloud which will rise when I inevitably nuke your speaks.

__FRAMEWORK AND/OR DEFINITION DEBATE__ If you intend to provide framework and/or definitions for the round, I still need to see warrants. Don't merely tell me how to view or evaluate the debate; explain why I ought to do so in your preferred manner. Also, if there are competing frameworks or definitions at play, I need to see work on weighing out why I ought to prefer one side's interpretation over the other's. If I don't have reasons/warrants on which to prefer, I'll make the choice for myself, and none of us in that round want me to have to do that given that judges doing work for themselves is the quickest way to get people all huffy about the decision. I won't intervene unless I'm left with no option but to do so in order to make a decision.

Also, more specifically on framework, if it matters and it's something that swings the debate one way or the other, you need to //apply// the framework to the argumentation in the debate.

__SPEED__ Don't. That's not the event's intention, and the speaker points I award will be used to discourage speaking practices I find to be problematic. Beyond all that, I suck at dealing with speed, so even if I wanted to get it all, I wouldn't.

__REBUTTALS__ I steadfastly believe it is the second team's duty and obligation to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as which ever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded. A team that ignores this bit of adaptation should expect to see speaker points that reflect a performance that I see as half-complete.

__SUMMARIES__ The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I don't need line-by-line work in this speech. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.

__FINAL FOCUS__ FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow.

__SPEAKER POINTS__ My scale is essentially as follows:
 * 30 - Absolutely perfection or otherwise deeply impressive (I have had multiple seasons where I gave no 30's.)
 * 29 - Near perfect speaking/execution/argumentation/strategy (I will probably award between one and three 29's over the course of a tournament.)
 * 28 - Good on pretty much all fronts (28/28.5's are my most frequently awarded points.)
 * 27 - Average (I give 27's frequently.)
 * 26-25 - Below average in one or more ways (26-25 are probably on par with 29's in terms of my frequency of awarding them.)
 * 24 or fewer - Deeply problematic in one or more ways, likely offensive in nature/something warranting an apology to one or more people (I don't give 24 or fewer points very often, perhaps a small handful of them in a season.)

I'm a-ok with post-round questions regarding the decision. If that turns into aggressive post-rounding, I will provide the debater/team with one spoken warning on demeanor before docking no fewer than 5 speaker points if the decorum issues continue.

__STRIKE ADVICE__ If you do not intend to adapt and address both sides of the flow in the second rebuttal, you should strike me. Every team addresses both sides every weekend on my regional circuit, so I know it is a fair expectation AND that it can be done successfully. If you do not adapt to this expectation, you will be disappointed with the round's results, and I will not be kind with speaks.

__**LINCOLN DOUGLAS **__
I used to judge LD fairly frequently, but in recent years, I have judged LD far more infrequently (perhaps an average of about 5 rounds a year for the past several years).

__SPEED__ To be frank, I'm not good with flowing speed, though I have gotten much better since about 2013. I don't want a debater to speak to me like I'm a troglodyte, but I still struggle to some extent when tasked with keeping up with a quick speaker on the flow. I prefer a much more relaxed delivery than the hyper-active speed, but I will do everything I can to follow along and keep up. I will clear you if I'm not able to follow along, but if a debater doesn't adapt to my ability level, I'm not heartbroken over missing an argument or two on the flow. I'm an open book as far as non-verbal feedback goes, so you ought to know what I'm thinking and how I feel in any given moment.

__STANDARDS/ARGUMENT STYLE__ I prefer a traditional value-criterion centered argumentative style as the rounds are much more difficult to evaluate fairly when I'm not given a clear means of preferring a side. I also prefer more resolutionally founded argumentation, but I won't reject non-topical positions without a reason to do so. While I'm largely inexperienced with many of the more technical aspects of national circuit LD, I am open to virtually anything.

__THEORY__ If you run a theory argument, you should have a solid reason to make that argument. Abuses claimed need to be well-founded and explained. Blippy theory arguments will do nothing for me. I'm not necessarily outright opposed to theory being run, but the debater in question should know that I will need to have it explained essentially every step of the way. Don't treat me like I'm incapable of understanding a the position, but please present it to me as someone that has not heard the position before.

__K DEBATE__ I would like to see a well-developed K position, but I expect the K to either be the only thing a debater runs or to be consistent with other positions the debater chooses to pursue. Please provide enough analytics to explain the position. My openness established, I have little experience with the K, so I might need a higher level of explanation than other judges who are open to the K.

__GENERAL NOTE__ I prefer developed case debate. A 67-off-case-positions style of LD isn't appealing to me. I can (and will) evaluate them if the round dictates so, but a debate wherein I see a litany of blippy arguments opposing a handful of well-developed ones, I'm siding with the well-developed positions the overwhelming majority of the time. One dropped argument does not a victory make if that dropped argument is in itself poorly developed. I'm open to anything that's well explained and well-justified, but it must certainly be both of those things if it's what you plan on going for in the end of the debate. I won't be ideologically opposed to the arguments you decide to run, but I likely won't be as familiar with the jargon and hyper-technical aspects of your arguments as other judges may be.

__SPEAKER POINTS__ If you're pref'ing judges with the goal of winning a speaker award, I'm probably not your judge. I've never utilized the tenth points scale beyond using half points, so I don't use them. I have no idea what makes a 29.2 different than a 29.4; I understand that when seeking out speaker awards, it's a big difference, but because I can't for the life of me understand a practical difference in those two performances, I'm not one to put the tenth point speaks into play.

My scale is essentially as follows:
 * 30 - Absolutely perfection or otherwise deeply impressive (I have had multiple seasons where I gave no 30's.)
 * 29 - Near perfect speaking/execution/argumentation/strategy (I will probably award between one and three 29's over the course of a tournament.)
 * 28 - Good on pretty much all fronts (28/28.5's are my most frequently awarded points.)
 * 27 - Average (I give 27's frequently.)
 * 26-25 - Below average in one or more ways (26-25 are probably on par with 29's in terms of my frequency of awarding them.)
 * 24 or fewer - Deeply problematic in one or more ways, likely offensive in nature/something warranting an apology to one or more people (I don't give 24 or fewer points very often, perhaps a small handful of them in a season.)

I'm a-ok with post-round questions regarding the decision. If that turns into aggressive post-rounding, I will provide the debater/team with one spoken warning on demeanor before docking no fewer than 5 speaker points if the decorum issues continue.

__PREF ADVICE__ My advice on how to pref me:
 * Theory Debaters - 4 or Strike (I'm just not one to see most theory args are important or a reason to vote.)
 * K Debaters - 2 or 3 (There are judges that are much more experienced with the K that you'd probably pref higher than me.)
 * Traditional: 1 or 2
 * Tricks: 4 or Strike (In all likelihood, I'm not your judge. I'll listen to it if it's explained, but the tricks are so frequently blippy and unexplained that I have lots of trouble evaluating that style of debate.)


 * If you have any specific questions, ask them pre-round.**