Kasher,+Morriel

Last Updated 9/5/16

First off, +1 for actually reading judge paradigms. You've given yourself a distinct advantage over non-reading opponents, and if you casually sneak the word "Pinocchio" into your speech I'll bump your speaker points accordingly :)

5 Years Policy Debate 2 Years Judging
 * Experience:**

Game Theorist (more popular in the 90s). I treat debate like a game of chess, and if no one puts the other in checkmate then I will vote on whomever played the game better. (i.e. has more pieces left on the board, etc.) If this sounds complicated/makes no sense, ask me in the round and I'll clarify. In short, this paradigm means I will vote on any arguments with a clearly articulated impact and warrants as to its validity. Just because an expert agrees with you does not mean you don't need warrants. I'm also very anti-judge-intervention, so if a team drops an argument I need the opposing team to clearly state that it was dropped, as well as the implications of what that means for the debate round if I am to vote on said argument.
 * Paradigm:**

I know how it feels to miss breaking at a tournament off of a 4-2 record because 1 judge wouldn't give anyone higher than a 27, it's not a fun plane flight back. So I am very generous with speaker points, so long as you don't do any of the things I mention on this page to change my mind.
 * Speaker Points:**

I reserve the right to drop your team if I hear any of the following arguments, regardless of their warrants; Racism/Discrimination Good Racism/Discrimination Does Not Exist Stopping Warming Will Solve Racism
 * Things I Don't Like:**

These are only a few, but I will vote on nihilism/extinction good impacts as well as other morally-questionable arguments if they have strong warrants and are properly articulated. If you are blatantly rude/disrespectful repeatedly to your opponents, teammate, or I, I will not drop your team but nevertheless reserve the right to kill your speaker points. Please remember the things you say in a debate round do not exist within a vacuum and you should acknowledge that the vote I cast in my ballot should suggest real-world implications, even if they realistically don't.

Speed-reading (spreading) should not be a tool to facilitate tag-only debates and a way to disguise mis-cut cards. It should be a method to fit as many good arguments into a speech as possible. If you are un-clear, I will shout "clearer" during your speech 1-2 times. If you are still unclear while spreading I will just not flow your arguments, it's not my job to sift through your garbled nonsense to pick out the disguised warrants to your tags. Spread as fast as you want, I am well-versed in flowing extremely fast speeches, but maintain clarity as you do so, especially for the tag/author. I will ask for evidence at the end of the round and if it is mis-cut I will cross it off my flow.
 * Flowing/Spreading:**

The things you say in Cross-Ex //are binding//. I don't care what theory or procedural argument you read that says cross-ex shouldn't be binding, it is. If you lie in CX I will kill your speaker points and potentially drop your team, depending on the lie's severity. Always be respectful towards your opponent during CX, but nevertheless cut them off as often as you need if you don't feel they're answering your question or rambling in their answer.
 * Cross-Examination:**

The NEG represents the status quo up until they present some counter-advocacy, so if I can't find any offense anywhere in the debate round, or a clear inherency/solvency on the AFF, I will vote NEG on presumption if the argument is made/extended through to the 2NR. I will not vote on presumption if it is not clearly pointed out.
 * Presumption:**

The AFF does have a burden to be a topical part of the resolution, so I will vote on topicality if I see clear voting issues as to why. I am okay with K AFFs, so long as they are argued well and there is a reason you had to reject the resolution, so if a topical version of the AFF exists that solves for its harms that will always be preferential.
 * Topicality:**

If you A) Don't have a clear Alternative or B) Change your Alternative during the round //I will note vote for the K.// I need to see what the world of the alternative looks like if I am to consider the argument. But yes, I will gladly vote on Ks if you demonstrate that you understand your literature/philosophy very well. If you're asked about your ethics/morality and don't know the correct answer, it shows you don't truly understand what you're reading, and I will be less likely to vote for you.
 * Kritiks:**

So long as there is a clear connection between the internal link and impact I will vote on any well-articulated off-case argument.
 * DAs/CPs:**

I will be //much// less likely to vote on potential abuse than in-round abuse, but if you can provide a reason why condo/whatever theory argument you're running is abusive, I will vote on it. This includes Reverse Voting-Issues, though I will vote very begrudgingly and not be particularly happy while doing so. That being said, I do need some sort of potential/in-round abuse in addition to generic voting issues, I take general theory more seriously than topicality in this regard. Framework is important, and if you make your framework something that fundamentally conflicts with my paradigm, I will adjust my paradigm for the round to accommodate this (unless a counter-framework is read).
 * Conditionality/Theory/Framework/Procedurals:**

If you've read all this, you've probably had too much time to prepare for this debate. Get going! Nevertheless, thank you for taking the time to do so.