Wullschleger,+Austin

=Austin Wullschleger – Judge Philosophy=

I am a 3rd year policy debater in open at Liberty University and did Lincoln-Douglas debate 3 years of high school.
==Overview - If you make good arguments and explain them to me then I will listen to it. Don’t assume that I know the basis for your arguments, that isn't to say I don’t understand your argument but rather I want to see that you understand your argument and can explain it to me. I want to hear you clash with your opponents arguments and give me a reason why I should vote for you at the end of debate. Don’t make me have figure it out on my own, give me the reason’s I should vote for you.==

==Topicality – I am a big fan of reasonability for affs, I think a lot of times the negative will say there is abuse but give no reason how there is abuse. For the aff I want to see an answer for the reasons your interpretation is good or why your aff creates good debates. If the negative is going for T then there should be good explanation why the aff is abusive and has created lossed ground. Tell me what specific abuse in the round there is and why their specific aff is bad. For negatives I tend to like arguments about how the aff justifies other untopical affs that would also be abusive, this helps also leverage how there is abuse on a research burden argument. It really comes to framing of the impact level, like in any debate if you can win your impact framing and why yours come first I will vote on it.==

==Theory – I tend to think that some kind of ground will be lost inevitably on both sides so I don’t WANT to vote on it. But like with topicality if you give me specific reasons why you have lost ground or there is abuse in the round and give good explanation I will vote on it.== ==On conditionality specifically I think that one conditional advocacy is pretty much never abusive (again it can be argued but I better have a fantastic explanation of why it is). The more conditional advocacies the more inclined I would be to vote for it. I think it can easily be argued and think is true to an extent that contradictory conditional advocacies are abusive to the aff, but on the neg I think it can also be argued why this is good to test the aff and just a test of competition.==

==CPs – I think CPs are pretty strategic on the negative, but at the same time I think that a lot of times a perm is really easy to win and the hardest for the negative to answer. I want to know how you gain access to your net benefit because many times I don’t hear the neg tell the judge and leaves the judge having to do work on this level. I think it is really strategic for the aff to argue how the cp still links to the net benefit or really any offense against the net benefit. At the same time, if there is any chance the net benefit turns case and a good risk that the perm still links to the net benefit then I am inclined to vote neg on risk of both.== ==I also like a good solvency debate discussion here. How does the cp actually solve for the aff's advantages? Does the cp solve better then the aff? If an aff can make me question if the cp can solve for the aff then this gives me less reason to vote for the DA or that the perm can't solve.==

==DAs – I think the roughest place for negs to win is on the link level (they are usually generic or really weak…or both). I love good clash on uniqueness as well. I think the biggest part of the DA debate is on the impact level. Why does the aff outweigh the DA or how does the impact turn case? On DA’s whoever does the best job of impact framing will have a better chance of getting my vote.==

==Kritiks – I have debated a policy aff for my entire college career and lean more policy in the way I view a round. At the same time last year I debated K’s almost exclusively on the negative and I am open to hear your K and have a basic knowledge of most K’s. I think the problem with most K’s (and what I have heard and seen in many judge philosophies) is that the alternative is terribly explained, so I want to hear a clear explanation of what your alt does and how it works within the round. Don’t expect me to just understand your K, as I said in my overview don’t assume I know your arg, I want to hear your explanation. Tell me why the K outweighs case and what specifically the affirmative is doing that is bad or viewed wrongly. If it is a K aff I want to hear why what you are doing is good for debate and, I will talk more about this on framework.==

==On race K's i have not read the literature on that as much so you may have to do a little bit better explanation on your args. To clarify as well I don't always see this type of argumentation the way some judges do. I don't think because the state is racist (because no one is winning that it isn't) that it is a reason to vote the aff down, I think the aff can still win that the world of the aff is better able to solve those problems then the world of the alt. But this is a debate to be had, and again if your explanation is good I'll vote for who does the better arguing.==

==Framework – On framework my overview kind of tells the story of what I want to hear on both sides. For a critical team I want to hear why your form of debate is good or creates change, this explanation is KEY to me voting for any type of K on the aff or neg. I think teams many times have good arguments but don’t have a good reason why this creates good discussion or good debates. Like I said at the beginning of my K philosophy, I tend to lean more policy and think it is easy to win that K’s create a research burden. Really…I just want to hear a good debate about whether or not different forms of debate are good and bad and a good explanation why.==