Stewart,+Clay+(Policy)

==Note: This is my __Policy__ paradigm. For my __LD__ paradigm, see the JudgePhilosophies Wikispaces. ==

This will likely be significantly longer than you want/ need. This is intentional, as different teams want different information about the name on the MJP list, so I'll try to be as in-depth on each topic as possible. I hated judges with short paradigms as a debater, because they would gloss over preferences about certain types of arguments/ styles that I wanted to use, leaving me in the dark. Just skip to the preferences you care about. If you have any questions, ask before round.
 * Clay Stewart, Policy Paradigm (Created August 2015) **

Debate Experience
Lincoln-Douglas: 3 Years (Local/ National Circuit)

 Policy Debate: 4 Years of College Policy Debate, Georgia State University (Starting with the 2011-2012 Democracy Assistance Topic) 2015 NDT Qualifier (WOOT!) Coached By: Joe Bellon, Nick Sciullo, Erik Mathis __Argument Style:__ I read primarily kritikal arguments my Freshman/ Sophomore year; I switched to primarily policy arguments my Junior/ Senior year. __Caselist Link (I was a 2N my Senior year):__ http://opencaselist14.paperlessdebate.com/Georgia+State/Stewart-Nails+Neg

Coaching Experience
Lincoln-Douglas Debate: 4 Years (Local/ National Circuit) Policy Debate: **First-Year Graduate Assistant** At The University Of Georgia

General Preferences
 **__Overview (a.k.a. tl;dr):__**

<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"> Debate is a game; my strongest belief as a judge is that debaters should be able to play the game however they want to play it. While I'm mostly familiar with traditional policy arguments, __I will pull the trigger on any argument that is successfully won in a debate, whether that's CP/ DA, Ashtar, a non-traditional performance critiquing gender, or conditionality.__<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"> Read whatever you like at whatever speed you like, and, so long as you're clear, we'll be good to go. I am probably better at judging well-carded debates about substance, but, like I said, I will pull the trigger on anything. Unless told otherwise by either of the debaters, I will flow the debate, and vote, based on the line-by-line, for whomever I thought won the debate. __What follows are my general thoughts about arguments, because for some reason that's what counts as a "judging paradigm" these days. Everything that follows WILL be overridden by arguments made in the debate.__

__**Theory:**__

<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"> Not my strongest point as a judge; I grew up as a local-circuit debater without theory prior. __That does not, however, mean that you should not run theory if that's your thing/ there's actual abuse/ it's the most strategic way out of the round.__<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"> Given the way theory arguments tend to go down, with both sides reading blippy blocks at each other until all hell breaks loose in the 1AR, the easiest thing you can do to win my ballot on theory is to slow down and give an overview at the top of the 2NR/ 2AR that sets up a clear way for me to evaluate the line-by-line. __I have no default conception of how theory functions, it could be an issue of competing interpretations, an issue of reasonability, an RVI, or a tool of the patriarchy. Frame it the way you want it evaluated.__ __*****Warning***:**__ <span style="font-family: times new roman,times;">My LD background, where theory is much more common/ crazy (e.g. Counter-solvency Advocates Good/ Must Number Your Cards), means that I probably have a much lower threshold for pulling the trigger than you're used to. Defaults such as X is never a reason to reject the team, RVIs Bad, and a general disregard of Spec arguments aren't hardwired into me like the vast majority of the judging pool. __**Shenanigans/ Weird Stuff:**__ __I'm fine with whatever you choose to do in a debate round**.**__<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"> Given my debate career, I've probably put myself in Death Good/ Omega Point-land for the rest of my life.

<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;">I have zero moral high ground to reject any argument on-face, unless it is utterly incomprehensible.

<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;">**__Evidence:__**

<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;">Not a judge to reconstruct debates after the 2AR. __Substantial deference will be given to in-debate spin.__<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"> If that's not enough for my decision, then I'll start reading more into card quality/ warrants.

<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;">**__Computer Issues/ In-Round Issues:__**

<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"> I'm understanding of computer issues. I'll stop my timer and we'll wait a normal period of time for you to get your computer fixed. The same is true with in-round issues (i.e.- you have a coughing spell, are exceedingly nervous or stuttering, or you lose a flow). I'm an understanding person. We'll stop the clock, resolve the issue/ wait an appropriate amount of time.

<span style="font-family: times new roman,times; font-size: medium;">Policy Preferences
__**Counterplans:**__ <span style="font-family: times new roman,times;">Read 'em. __While I'm personally a big fan of process CPs/ PICs, I generally default to letting the literature determine CP competition/ legitimacy.__<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"> If you have a kickass solvency advocate, then I will probably lean your way on most theoretical issues. On the other hand, __as a former 2A, I sympathize with 2AC theory against CPs against which it is almost impossible to generate solvency deficits. 2ACs should not be afraid to bow up on CP theory in the 1AR.__

__**DAs:**__ <span style="font-family: times new roman,times;">Specific DAs/ links trump generic DAs/ links absent substantial Negative spin. Love DAs with odd impact scenarios/ nuanced link stories. __**Politics:**__

__Not my favorite DA strategy; I functionally never read this as a debater.__ <span style="font-family: times new roman,times;">Slow down/ clearly flag key points/ evidence distinctions in the 2NR/ 2AR. Don't assume I'm super up to date on the Uniqueness story for your scenario.

__**Topicality:**__ <span style="font-family: times new roman,times;">Read it. __Strategic tool that most 2Ns uderutilize**.**__<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"> Yet to hear a nuanced argument for reasonability; the T violation seems to prove the 1AC is unreasonable...

<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;">**__Kritiks:__**

<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"> While I do not personally agree with the majority of Kritiks, __I've read a decent amount of Kritikal literature, and, if you run the K well, I'm a good judge for you.__

__Increasingly irritated with 2ACs that fail to engage the nuance of the K they're answering__ <span style="font-family: times new roman,times;">(Cede the Political/ Perm: Double-Bind isn't enough to get you through a competently extended K debate). __Similarly irritated with 2NCs that debate the K like a politics DA.__ <span style="font-family: times new roman,times;">Your most powerful argument as the 2NC on the K is top-level explanation. __**F**inally, 2ACs are too afraid to bow up on the K, especially with Impact Turns__<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;">. __I often end up voting Negative on the Kritik because the 2AC got sucked down the rabbit hole and didn't remind there was real-world outside of the philosophical interpretation offered by the K.__

<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;">**__Framework (2AC):__**

<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;">You're better off reading this as policymaking good/ pragmatism offense to prefer the plan versus the alternative than a reason to exclude the K entirely. Generally skeptical of 2ACs that claim the K isn't within my jurisdiction/ is super unfair.

**<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;">Framework (2NC) ** <span style="font-family: times new roman,times;">Often end up voting Negative because the Affirmative strategically mishandles the FW of the K. Generally skeptical of K FW's that make the plan/ the real-world disappear entirely.

<span style="font-family: times new roman,times; font-size: medium;">Non-Traditional Preferences/ Clash of Civilization Debates
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;">**__Clash of Civilization Debates:__**

<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;">Enjoy these debates; I will probably judge alot of them. __The worst thing you can do is overadapt. DEBATE HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DEBATE.__ <span style="font-family: times new roman,times;">My favorite debate that I ever watched was UMW versus Oklahoma, where UMW read a giant Hegemony advantage versus Oklahoma's 1-off Wilderson. __I've been on both sides of the clash debate, and I respect both sides. I will just as easily vote on Framework/ the Community PIC, as use my ballot to resist anti-blackness in debate.__

<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;">**__Traditional ("Policy" Teams):__**

__**<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;">Framework (As "T"): **__ <span style="font-family: times new roman,times;">Never read this as a debater; most of my experience is answering Framework. __As a 2N answering K 1ACs, I generally defaulted to Soft FW (e.g. - must have an advocacy statement) versus Hard FW (must defend a plan). As a former 2N, however, I am sympathetic to limits arguments given the seemingly endless proliferation of K 1ACs with a dubious relationship to the topic.__ <span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"> Explain how your interpretation is an opportunity cost of the 1ACs approach, and how you solve the 2ACs substantive offense (i.e. critical pedagogy/ our performance is important, etc.).
 * __D__**__O YOU.__<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"> Traditional teams should not be afraid to double-down against K 1ACs,/ Big K 1NCs either via Framework or Impact Turns This is particularly true on this topic, which sets Negative policy teams up to defend U.S. military presence.

<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;">**__Non-Traditional ("Performance"/ "K" Teams):__**

__As someone who spent a semester reading a narrative project about welcoming veterans into debate, I'm familiar with the way these arguments function, and I feel that they're an integral part of the game we call debate**.**__<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"> However, that does not mean I will vote for you because you critiqued the debate community; __I will just as easily drop you to Framework/ the Community PIC, as pick you up to resist anti-blackness in debate**.**__<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"> I judge these debates, unless told otherwise, like every other debate, and I expect well-reasoned/ well-carded arguments just like I would from any other debater. __**<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;">AT: Framework **__ <span style="font-family: times new roman,times;">The closer you are to the topic/ the clearer your Affirmative is in what it defends, the more I'm down with the Affirmative. __While I generally think that alternative approaches to debate are important discussions to be had, if I can listen to the 1AC and have no idea what the Affirmative does, what it defends, or why it's a response to the Topic beyond nebulous claims of resisting X-ism, then you're in a bad spot.__ <span style="font-family: times new roman,times;">Explain how your Counter-Interp solves their theoretical offense, or why your permutation doesn't link to their limits/ ground standards.

__**<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;">Fairness/ Education: **__ <span style="font-family: times new roman,times;">Is important. __I am generally confused by teams that claim to impact turn fairness/ education.__ <span style="font-family: times new roman,times;">Your arguments are better articulated as INL-turns (i.e. X-ism/ debate practice is structuralyl unfair). Debate at some level is a game, and you should explain how your version of the game allows for good discussion/ an equal playing field for all.

<span style="font-family: times new roman,times; font-size: medium;">Post-Emory 2015 Update
__**Ethics Violations:**__

After being forced to decide an elimination debate on a card-clipping accusation during the 2015 Barkley Forum (Emory), I felt it necessary to establish clarity/ forewarning for how I will proceed if this unfortunate circumstance happens again. __While I would obviously prefer to decide the debate on actual substantive questions, this is the one issue where I will intervene. In the event of an ethics accusation, I will do the following:__


 * 1)** __Stop the debate.__ I will give the accusing team a chance to withdraw the accusation or proceed. If the accusation stands, I will decide the debate on the validity of the accusation.


 * 2)**__Consult the Tabroom__ to determine any specific tournament policies/ procedures that apply to the situation and need to be followed.


 * 3)** __Review available evidence__ to decide whether or not an ethics violation has taken place. In the event of a clipping accusation, a recording or video of the debate would be exceptionally helpful. __I am a personal believer in a person being innocent until proven guilty. Unless there's definitive evidence proving otherwise, I will presume in favor of the accused debater.__


 * 4)** __Drop the Debater.__ If an ethics violation has taken place, I will drop the offending team, and award zero speaker points. If an ethics violation has not occurred, I will drop the team that originally made the accusation. The purpose of this is to prevent frivolous/ strategic accusations, given the very real-world, long-lasting impact such an accusation has on the team being accused.