Thompson,+Corey


 * Overview - Most of you won't read my entire paradigm. Do whatever you want. Have fun, do mock your opponents and their arguments. Evaluate all arguments on an equal playing field, (unless otherwise specified in FW). Make it easy to vote for your strategy, and be smart while answering the other teams overall strategy. Prioritize your flows during the debate, you should never go for everything brought up in the 1NC.**

My background in debate is primarily in policy debate. I competed for 4 years at Gig Harbor H.S. and have succeeded at national circuit debate tournaments, and traveled to nationals twice. I debated for Santa Clara University all 4 years, but doing a combination of policy and parliamentary debate. Finally, I coached a H.S. team in San Jose in Lincoln-Douglass style debate, and am very familiar with how teams and tournaments function.

To continue, I am familiar with a huge variety of debate arguments and resolutions/current events. I studied political science and business at SCU, with a concentration on international business and relations (comparative politics/Int. law) etc… That being said, I may not be as familiar with current acronyms and abbreviations on this year’s topic. I read the news multiple times a day, but do not assume I know what you’re talking about if you choose to get really specific with Aff Cases (plan planks) and corresponding Case Neg. Clarify during CX, or during your first few cards, and I will be able to follow references for the rest of your speech. I will say that I have judged about ten rounds on this years topic.

Generally, I am very active during the debate. I will nod if I like your argument, if I think it makes sense in the broader scope of your team’s strategy; and, will probably look at you confused if I feel you are not making a smart argument. I am willing to look at evidence, but debaters should be extracting the most important warrants from the card, so I only need to verify this, and don’t need to “do work” to create a series of logical steps/arguments for the team. In addition, I am a flow judge and will hold teams accountable for dropped offensive arguments, unless the other team groups those arguments, or give reasons why they all fall into a certain answer/criticism. **Speed is fine, but be clear. I haven’t heard your voice before or your speaking style, so even if you are clear, go extra slow for the first 30 seconds of your speech if you want me to flow it. (Especially 1N’s that put T shells at the top of the 1NC). This is important to me, because I was able to be very fast in policy, but I never sacrificed spreading over being able to communicate clearly to a judge. I may yell clear, don’t be offended, just slow down.**


 * Aff plan text & Topicality/Theory –** Explain the plan text/resolution/T-violations very clearly. The affirmative can adopt a critical approach to the resolution, as long as I feel that it somehow addresses part of the resolutions “topical education and ground” For me, education is similar to ground, because the resolution provides parameters for a broad discussion. If I feel that either team is skewing these parameters, I would prefer to hear an abuse story related to the round. I can evaluate T with both competing interpretations and standards, but I default to abuse and need to see how abuse was caused/will be caused, and how in-round education and ground for a potential strategy was ruined by an untopical plan.


 * Disads & CPs –** I evaluate Negative counter plans as an alternative policy option for me to vote on using primarily the Aff’s framework of assuming the ballot passes a plan and “we all” emulate the USFG or specified actor. If you choose to combine K Alts with a CP, make sure you clarify multiple worlds being good/bad, how you fit into that theory, or if you can advocate for both and they are not mutually exclusive. Also, I will compare only 2 competing policies at the end of the round unless told otherwise. The plan and the CP… I really enjoy a lot of analysis on the perm debate, because this is how you weigh both advocacies in relation to net benefits and Disads and arguments you have made that link to either advocacy. Both teams should specify how the perm functions in relation to Disad links and whether or not a particular Aff stategy (plan alone or perm) would bite back into the Neg CP and the net benefits/linking to Disads. Finally, if the Neg wants to advocate for the status quo and a CP, please make sure you are clarifying which one would come first, and how they relate to each other when compared to the Aff’s plan. The same goes for the AFF, tell me if the plan alone is better or whether you want to go for the perm as a competing policy option. Prioritize your strategy…


 * Kritiks –** I believe it is easy for teams to create very generic criticisms regardless of the topic as it changes from year to year. Thus, please make the K debate (link story) as specific as possible. I need to understand how the ballot functions differently, why voting either direction would make a systemic problem/assumption/or use of rhetoric worse than it is in the status quo. Also, you need to weigh the K in relation to the Aff’s framework unless you specify a new way to evaluate both teams. I would prefer that both teams have good clash on this point, but I don’t think its impossible for both teams to put forward a framework that is inclusive of lots of different strategies. Inclusive frameworks are the way to go, and won’t risk hearing abuse from the other team. That being said, all AFF and NEG strategies should be well-thought out and should be able to function in a few different frameworks, not just an exclusive weighing mechanism/impact framework. //**To conclude, I will never use my previous knowledge of a topic to make a decision, unless both teams fail to walk me through their logic and evaluation of the debate. Therefore, I am a "Tabula Rasa" judge! (I put that at the bottom so you would read the rest of my paradigm.) Make it easy for me to vote on you, and please do a lot of “cross flow” analysis. I want to know how all my sheets of paper relate to each other, and which one I should evaluate first.**// Thanks for reading my judging philsophy… ~ Corey Thompson