Dworak,+BJ

This is my first year judging though I have judged many practice rounds throughout my high school career. I debated for Cedarburg High School near Milwaukee, WI for four years. While my experience is certainly more extensive within the state where I won numerous awards, I also attended numerous national tournaments and had a winning record at all attended. I am currently a freshman Political Science major at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

I'm not well read on literature for this topic as it's the beginning of the season so you are going to have to lay things out there for me.

That being said, I have a pretty laid back judging philosophy. Definitely tabs, but I will default to policy making if all else fails. Here's my take on various topics.


 * Speed:** Go as fast as you want, slow down on tags and authors. I try to flow both but don't always get both. That being said it would be wise to refer to cards by both warrants and authors when referencing them in later speeches. Not just one or the other. I'll tell you to slow down if you are going too fast. I'll do it as much as I need to. If you blatantly ignore me, expect low speaks and for me to stop flowing.


 * Topicality:** To be an honest I'm not a huge T fan and rarely went for it in high school. That being said, I will still vote on it. However, I may also vote against you if I see the violation and the debate to be a complete time suck to what otherwise could have been a more meaningful round. I see topicality as an important defense against actual abuse. Potential abuse is largely bs and am yet to hear it articulated in a manner that I can ever imagine voting on it. If there is true in round abuse, I will vote on it. My T debate was never amazing so I'd really rather not have a 3 page T flow to sort through some competing interpretations. If T is your strat every round don't pref me. I will default to reasonability and admit that I generally err aff on the T debate. If you use T as a tool to protect yourself I'm very open to it, just make sure the abuse is clear. Reading case arguments that are specific to the aff are not going to make me want to vote for you.


 * Procedurals:** Though I'm not a huge T fan, there are several procedurals I'm quite fond of. Those are the SPECs, vaguness, effects, and extra. I am much more likely to vote on those and enjoy the debate. Theory is fine with me, but don't make it your only argument against something like a CP or K. I'd rather see a good debate on more substantial issues especially eraly in the season when there are plenty of new arguments. Once again, I don't want to sort through a long theory flow.


 * Counterplans:** This is the debate I truly enjoy and was almost always my strategy. Any kind of CP is fine just be prepared to defend it on the theoretical level and explain the practical difference of what will happen in the implementation of the plan vs. counterplan. Go for this with a net benefit and you will have a very happy judge. Consult, agent, something random, it's all good. Have specific solvency advocates for each of the aff advantages or you better do a damn good job mitigating the aff impacts.


 * Kritiks:** This is something you might want to talk to me before the round about. I debated the K and I ran the K. I like the K. I see it's purpose. What I must see is an alternative that actually does something and I want you to articulate this clearly. Say what the alt does. Rejecting the aff is not an alt. That's me voting against them because it's not a good idea. I want you to be endorsing something. I'm not ridiculously well read on the K authors so explain what's going on and don't assume I know a ton about the philosophy you are endorsing. That beign said, I've heard most Ks and will have a general idea what you are talking about.


 * Framework:** I like framework. A lot. It was my strat against the K. Run framework. It will make me happy. That's about it. Just a subtle suggestion.


 * Disads:** This is once again my home turf. I like policy debate. I like big impacts. The same goes for the case debate. I'm a junky for politics and am very well versed on issues of political theory.


 * The case debate and concluding remarks:** I will vote on any case argument provided it is well argued. This includes inherency. I won't automatically vote against the aff for a slight risk of a solvency defecit, I'm very much of the try or die mindset. I think it's often better to do something than stick with the status quo or the resolution would be different. It's a contraversial issue that something needs to be done about. That's why I like CPs a lot. Big advantages and big impacts are what I like. Pretty standard impact calc is good for me. Advantages that solve for other stuff are sweet, I'm particularly a junky for heg and leadership debates--soft power, smart power, etc. and am well versed on this literature. I know what the authors are saying.

To conclude--don't cheat, be fair, be nice, be funny. No card clipping, etc. Ask me any questions you want before the round, I hope you do so I can refine this philosophy as time goes on. If you have any other questions don't hesitate to email me at

bjdworak AT gmail DOT com