Chase,+Alexander

I have 4 years' LD experience in the Dallas and East Texas Area, beginning in fall 2009 and ending in spring 2013. I began judging in fall 2013. I never competed in policy, but understand how the different arguments work, and if you want to run DA's, K's, or anything else you choose to "borrow" from policy, I'm completely okay with this. I can handle speed, but I can't handle bad pronunciation. If you lose your opponent, then we don't actually get to debate anything. Please speak clearly.

I am a second-year student at UT-Austin majoring in Economics and Plan II Honors with a certificate in Human Rights and Social Justice. I have a strong background in philosophy and specialize in rights theory and development. If you try to discuss a philosopher, chances are I'm familiar with them enough to understand what they are saying. I enjoy good discussion of human rights and how they are applied, but it is by no means necessary in a round. When I competed, I saw more than my fair share of judges who insisted that I bring up the name of a dead white man whose writings are completely inaccessible to most people today. Do not try to argue about something you do not understand. Do try to make the best possible arguments.

More than anything else, I insist that your arguments are logically consistent. I will not buy an illogical or blatantly false argument, regardless of how your opponent addresses it. I look at it this way: if your opponent drops your claim that George Washington was the 2nd president, that doesn't make it true. I will not do work for you in terms of understanding badly worded or constructed cases. A well worded and constructed K does a lot more for me than a poorly written "traditional" case that is riddled with errors. The same goes for the opposite: a good traditional case read at a snail's pace can beat a slew of poorly constructed DA's and CP's. I do not let debaters opt out of rules of logic, grammar, or math just because other judges let them. This is an educational exercise. Treat it like one.

I need you to tell me how to evaluate the topic. The value/criterion framework is important to me because it tells me how to evaluate the round, but if you can get by without doing this somehow, I'm not going to immediately vote against you. I need a weighing mechanism. Traditional structure exists because it has been accepted, but it isn't necessarily the best in all cases. Do what is best to get your points across.

For me, contentions need clear taglines. This isn't just because I want to be able to flow more easily, but also because this is how I believe good papers are constructed. A tagline is like a topic sentence in that it tells me what will follow. If you try to jump into the body of your contention without a topic sentence, then you're writing an unclear paper. Writing rules apply in debate because they allow for effective communication. Follow them. A long, winding topic sentence does not work in a paper any more than it does in debate. I equally want good signposting in rebuttals. They keep us all on track and make sure your arguments land.

I will vote based on the weighing mechanism that you give me. This can mean that the round focuses on the framework debate, and that there is massive clash between the two with one winning out, or this can mean that you both agree on a vaguely utilitarian framework and play the impacts game. If you choose to do this, though, please give me a way to weigh impacts. There is not an objective means to weigh lives lost vs GDP lost. If you tell me that something outweighs something else, there had better be a solid reason. Even if you prove to me that we all die in the aff/neg world, I will not immediately vote for you unless you can tell me why that means something.

I do not tolerate racism, sexism, ableism, or any other type of discrimination in my rounds. I will give the lowest possible speaker points for this. If you think you might have an issue with anything, don't do it. I will maintain an inclusive atmosphere in my rounds.

I have a few specific things I need to address:
 * Cards are not automatically correct just because they have a source. I will evaluate any claims you make based on their legitimacy, not on who made them. If you attack a source without attacking the claim, you've effectively dropped it for me. This works slightly differently for data, but even then, attacks on an individual are not immediately valid. If you can prove that the source is making up their data, that's different. That's proving that the methods are wrong. This is part of my insistence on logical argumentation. Asserting that a claim that is true based on who made it is an appeal to authority (and is wrong).
 * I really don't care about your appearance. Professional dress is good, but I'm not that picky. Wear a bowtie if you like. Wear flats if heels hurt your feet. A suit doesn't make your arguments better.
 * I won't give oral critiques, but I am completely okay with discussing a round after I have turned in my ballot. I don't want to be at a tournament all day, and neither do you.
 * Try your crazy stuff. Please. I want to see off-the-wall arguments. I enjoy them.

Your debate round needs to be enjoyable for all of use. Please, relax and do your best.