Hagwood,+Ben

Affiliation: Liberty University Experience: 4 Years of Policy Debate Judging: 3 Years (Policy & L.D.)

The first thing I ever learned in debate is that EVERYTHING IS DEBATE-ABLE! You probably should read a plan - but you don't have too, you probably should talk in the round - but you don't have too.

General Thought Process: During my time with debate I have argued both "policy" and "critical" positions. Lately, I have found that I enjoy participating in what I have termed, "conscience advocacy". It is just my way of saying that I am probably not topical and that is probably a good thing. I am not going to claim to be an expert on any specific things, but I have and continue read alot of literature in all categories. With that being said I think it is important to note that my initial, and probably still heavily influenced, training in debate is policy. I try to keep an open mind and I don't want to sound cliche but I am going to say it anyway, do whatever you think you do best.

Specific Stuff: (Probably should be read individually and not combined to be more strategic) T/Framework: I identify these as two completely different arguments, but I will lump them together in an attempt to shorten my philosophy so that you can get back to doing things that you deem more important. I am fine with both of these arguments, I understand that sometimes this is a good option against some teams just make sure that you impact the argument properly and you should have no problem.

DA: I actually enjoy a good Disad debate, I think it is impressive when a team straps in for case defense and a good disad. Although, I have to be honest I am not the biggest fan of politics but I think you should run it if you like it. Just spice it up with some Congressional Drama!

CP: A good CP can be devastating to teams that aren't ready for the specificity that might exist within that strategy. I don't really have a preference when it comes to theory - other than I believe that the negative team should probably be able to test the plan. Now whether or not that means you have to advocate the CP the entire round or advocate it if they MPX turn it is up to the debaters to decide. I believe that you should be able to defend whatever you say so if you think you can be conditional be ready to tell me why.

Non-traditional Affirmatives: Love the literature base for a lot of these arguments. I have found myself in this "category" and tend to think that it is a reason why this sort of debate is good. Normally I find myself thinking of ways that I would make the argument that the affirmative is making but in the past that has implicitly forced me to hold the affirmatives to a higher standard which is probably not good for this forum. So now I am pretty much by the flow and expect you to explain to me the importance of your case and its relevancy to the community and or topic. Just because you run a critical or non-traditional affirmative doesn't mean that you will win in front of me. You should be ready to defend your actions in the round.

The "K": I can't say too much here without practically explaining how I think you should probably read the kritik so instead I will just say that if you like to read it - read it. It is that simple. I believe that you should spend time explaining a good story and not doing too much pre-fabricated block work, some is fine but there is a limit, you should be able to get speicific instances. Also, theory on these positions are tricky. I am not opposed to voting aff because you concede utopian alts. (Or other theoretical args)

Personal Perspective: I try to remove myself as much as possible so that I do not force debaters to conform to what I think is good or bad. I wouldn't categorize myself as a normal judge, I will probably laugh at some of the jokes you tell. I like to have fun in debates we have to be in a room together for 90+ minutes might as well make it as much fun as possible right?!

Finally, make sure that you avoid doing things that would be offensive to other people (i.e sexist, racist or demeaning language or actions). I will interfere if that is an issue in the round.