Agbefe,Grant

Judging Paradigm: GAME. It's an educational game but still a game. Arguments I would prefer not to hear: Wipeout and Schopenhauer.

Alternative SOlvency: Don't assume I'll want to take part in some kind of Alternative happening within the round or outside. I believe that this kind of education can "spillover" but it's pretty presumptuous to assume your judge is down with your form of scholarship or that of your authors.

I like strategic strategies. I think consult counterplans are cool!! Disadvantages with specific links to the AFF. Politics D/As argued well.

To very critical teams. I'll listen and try to remain open to what you're advocating remember though at the end of the day regardless of what you're doing the activity is about persuasion.

If everyone has internet in the room start an e-mail thread lot quicker than flashing!! Quality of evidence matters, so do author bias and the source of information. With all the speed with all the data again I can't stress this enough the activity is a communicative discipline, humor is fine no ad-hominem attacks and remember to have fun don't be overly stressed. Winning is fun and desirable but you should be concerned with becoming a better debater, more responsible citizen and learning

If I'm on your schematic my first name might start with an M

If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask.

Judging Paradigm: I view debate as a game. Rules are debatable. If you want to know anything else about my judging philosophy more is below.

I debated for Morgan Park High School in Chicago, Illinois for 3 years. When I graduated I debated a year and a half of parliamentary debate while being one of the assistant coach of policy of debate at Mankato West High School in South Central Minnesota. I currently debate for Baylor University. Yes.. I get around a lot.

I say this to let you know I'm familiar with a lot of styles.

I'm definitely a flow judge. I won't make arguments for you. I will do what you tell me. I call for cards after the round sometimes but I shouldn't have to. We use evidence for a reason it's your duty to explain why a card says x or y. I won't make arguments for you. I will write down what you say.

1. It's useful in front of me to read numbers and letters before you read the tags of your cards. 2. You should also read the qualifications of your authors doesn't happen nearly enough.

Jumping Speeches: I won't time prep while you're jumping speeches just don't be abusive with it. I.e. prepping when you say you're jumping. If one team has a computer and the other doesn't make your computer accessible to the other team.

Arguments

Theory: Please don't just read theory blocks!!! Please be responsive to your opponents theory arguments instead of just spouting words.

Criticism

I'm down with the K. I ran it sometimes in High School and in on this year's nuclear topic. It was never like a one off thing always part of a bigger overarching strategy. That being said. If you're running some crazy off the wall K that's fine, just make sure you explain it and don't expect me to understand it. I'm probably not the best judge however for you to be running 4 Criticisms in front of. Your K must have an alternative if you want me to evaluate it as anything other than a non-unique disad or a bunch of case turns. I need to know who's enacting the alternative, does it solve for some external benefits outside of the round? Who's doing the alternative? All of these are questions that need to be answered if I'm going to be persuaded on the criticism.

Framework

These type of debates are central on some topics and I understand that. Please don't resort to reading your 20 page block on why Framework is bad. What I do want to see is clash and in-depth analysis of why policy should be preferred to the critical of what have you. Debating is more than spreading articulate a clear view point.

Topicality

You need to win that the instance of the Aff is outside of the resolution or that the Aff's interpretation is abusive or bad for debate. Aff prove that you're topical. Criticizing topicality is or Kritiking topicality is completely acceptable in front of me. Don't neglect the standards debate.

DAs love a nice unique politics, disad or a tradeoff.. Whatever just don't run disads that aren't complete with no internal links or non-unique. I'm all about the link. link debates aren't being argued like they should. And it's sad. Evidence is highly important to me in Disads. Articulate the warrants give me analysis, tell me a story

Counter-plans

They're too legit. Agent, pics. One thing about the PICs though they shouldn't be anything stupid like use a dollar less. PICs that pic out of a country or part of a bigger policy are fine. CPs have to solve some amount of case and or provide Net Benefits to why the CP should be preferred over the plan. I don't find that topical counterplans are abusive.

Case arguments

I wouldn't classify myself as a "Stock Issues" judge. However if you want to spend the entirety of the negative strategy on case arguments that's your decision. If you only want to run a few case args that's fine as well. Too often on these types of debate issues of magnitude are trumpeted when it should really be questions of probability in my opinion.

1. Run what arguments you want. I hated when I debated at NFLS and had to cater to some judges caveat. Not so fast. No wipe out or spark please. I've never judge arguments but they're not really that persuasive. Other than that run what you wish. 2. Have fun. I realize debate is important but don't lose your peace of mind over it and don't go getting all upset. 3. Be nice to your partner. I hate it when one partner is a giant douche. 4. Don't steal prep time or evidence. 5. Speed is fine but if I shout clear either slow down or speak clearer.