Ellis,+Brooke

Alta Paradigm:

I debated 2 years of policy in high school and will be judging at Silver and Black this year. Although I have judged some LD before, please don't assume I'll be familiar with the most contemporary circuit jargon. Same goes for topic arguments - it's a dense legal topic and I haven't done a enough reading to keep up with court cases or topic specific legalese.

General:

Spewing is nbd, as long as you keep tag lines/analysis/important stuff very audible. Probably won't vote for theory, but you do you. ALL DEFENSE ARGS MUST CLEARLY LINK!! Huge huge fan of impact calc. I frequently ran topicality as a debater, but don't usually vote for it. Whomever decides to run a kritik must demonstrate a full understanding of those philosophies. Remember that debate is a game! Entertainment is expected and feistiness is encouraged! As for specific parts of my paradigm:

I am okay with plans/cp's/DA's/Etc

I have a decent BS meter on theory arguments, but do what you will.

Overall, I really want people to explain their arguments, in particular the function of arguments they extend. I won't impose any hard and fast rules, but the burden is always on the debater to make sure I understand.