Parke,+Logan+C


 * Updated for Wake Forest 2016**


 * Background:** I'm a junior at UNC Chapel Hill and coach for Ardrey Kell High School. I have competed in and coached national circuit LD for 7 years. I currently compete in parliamentary debate on the collegiate level.


 * Disclaimer:** I personally believe that a judge should work to adapt to the debaters. As a result, treat this paradigm as a list of things I LIKE to see in round, but not what I NEED to see in round. Don’t immediately strike me if you see something that is problematic with your strat. //I’m more likely to be flexible on these issues than not.//


 * Short Version:** I am an extremely technical flow judge that is open to all types of argumentation and speeds. Do what you do best and make it interesting.

__Speed__ __Framework__ __Rebuttal prefs__ __Theory__ __Counterplans & Kritik__ __Speaks__ __General Notes__
 * 1) I am fine with all levels of speed. As always, clarity is emphasized above speed.
 * 2) Don’t spread through multiple taglines and expect me to keep up. If that’s AC strat, I will try to deal, but it would behoove you to slow down/explain in rebuttal if you want them to be a big issues.
 * 1) The value I place on framework is heavily dependent on the round. Winning the framework does not equate to winning the round. I’m also highly annoyed by debaters who engage in a framework debate when it’s not an issue/won’t win you the round.
 * 2) I treat framework technically. Preempts, prereqs, spikes, and qualifiers could drastically shift my perception of the round. I don’t care much for purely philosophical frameworks that lack technical advantages (i.e reasons to pref, prereqs, etc)
 * 3) If you have a dense framework, explain it. Especially if it leans more philosophical. Basic philosophies (i.e veil, s.c, etc.) don’t need explanation.
 * 1) I personally see extensions as conceded points that act as automatic offense/defense for your side. They hold a lot of weight in my decision. However, if you extend an argument, at least take the time to impact it, even if it’s brief. I give extended arguments with no impact analysis zero weight in future speeches.
 * 2) Extending author names is not always sufficient. Briefly reiterate what the card says and then you can use it by name, but don’t just extend a name.
 * 3) Voter issues are crucial and I believe good debaters will always give them. Don’t go overboard with it. 3-4 are fine.
 * 4) My primary job after the round is to not intervene, so weighing arguments = vital.
 * 5) I hate evidence debates where both sides just read contradictory evidence without telling me which to prefer. If that occurs, I am likely to wash the argument and look somewhere else.
 * 6) I have a very low threshold for what qualifies as a new argument in the 2NR or 2AR. If Aff sees that there was a new argument in the 2NR, don’t waste time on it. I don’t need an argument beyond “this is new.”
 * 1) I didn't really experiment with theory too much in high school, nor did I really ever hear it. However, I'm finding that I genuinely enjoy a good theory debate and am pretty well adjusted to it as a judge, so feel free to read it in round.
 * 2) With that being said, just don’t go overboard with it. //I don’t like blippy theory spikes in cases// or theory that is just ridiculous. I want to see clear abuse and a clear reason I vote because of it. If there’s even a question about whether it is viable, don’t bother with it. (I trust you to know what classifies as farfetched, and if you have any specific questions, just ask)
 * 1) Read any counterplan you want. My only pet peeve is this: Reading a counterplan is a concession of a unique solvency burden for the NC. Thus, I will inherently hold __ you __ to a solvency burden, not your opponent (without substantial reason/argument, of course).
 * 2) I love well done k debate. If you are reading an abstract K that isn't extremely common, take the time to explain it.
 * 1) I usually never go below 26. I’m quite generous with speaks for a good round.
 * 2) I am an absolute fan of popular culture. If you find a way to work in pop culture to the round, I will be happy. If you run a cultural studies case, I will probably love the round even more. I will also reward references to/quotes from Kesha, Amy Winehouse, or Lily Allen with guaranteed generous speaks.
 * 3) If you show me proof that you purchased "E•MO•TION" by Carly Rae Jepsen, I will give a 30, prep you for the rest of the tournament, and write you a college recommendation letter. //smarturl.it/E-MO-TION //
 * 1) Sit or stand wherever you want.
 * 2) I will disclose after round if there is enough time and both debaters are comfortable with it. If one of those is problematic, you can ask me after the round if you see me walking around.

If you have any comments, questions, concerns, or relevant life stories, feel free to share them before the round!