Barclay,+Michael

Michael Barclay I debate at Georgetown Day School Will be judging at Woodward

ANY LULZ WILL BE REWARDED

First, some general pet peeves of mine: 1) DON'T BE A JERK-hospitable and considerate rounds are good rounds. Unnecessary acts of hostility/rudeness will be rewarded with a docking of speaks. In addition, racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise derogatory language should never be used in debate – if you do, you are risking zero speaks and/or a loss.

2) Actually answer peoples' questions in cross-x. Nobody likes it when its intentionally shifty and it's really really obvious to the judge.

3) For paperless, prep ends when the usb leaves your computer. If there is a delay that is not your fault, I am a reasonable person and will most likely understand.

4) I will yell clear if you are unclear. Just slow down and calm down. It's not a personal attack.

K: This is my cup of tea and I am looking forward to judging these rounds. That being said, shallow explanation and complicated literature do not mix so if you decide to read a K in front of me, make sure it is simple enough to explain without relying on a zeitgeist of terminology. There needs to be a clear and specific link to the aff (if you read generic links, make sure to contextualize them within the thesis of the aff and explain how it effects what the aff is attempting to accomplish and its solvency mechanism for doing so). I don't really think the K needs an alt but if there isn't, there has to be some discussion of why that is, how it works in the context of (debate's form of) political advocacy, and what I am voting for by filling out a neg ballot. BAD K DEBATES ARE REALLY REALLY INSUFFERABLE SO ONLY READ WHAT YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WITH.

Performance/K Affs: While I personally believe that you don't HAVE to read a plan, I have no unbreakable ideological tie to this belief. This means that while I will probably not buy any blippy "they ruin debate, this is impossible for me" args (unless they are well warranted and their aff actually IS that abusive), but there is no reason why I can't be persuaded that a particular affirmative is abusive and should be voted down. Invoking the "rules" of debate is not a reason why I should vote neg (because they don't exist). Instead, isolate specific in round choices that the affirmative has made that unfairly leverages the debate in their favor. In other words, I don't/don't want to know about [insert genre of critical theory] is not persuasive in any way.

CP: This is normally Herman's territory in the block but that doesn't mean I won't understand the majority of what you have to say. Reading a multi-plank counterplan and hoping to roll the other team on competition theory is not a good strategy in front of me. I'm pretty apathetic to most questions of counterplan legitimacy (I don't really have strong opinions on consult, delay, agenct, etc.)

DA: the more specific the better. Well contextualized and specific links are good. (explaining links > reading more impacts)

T: The less contrived the better. Impact framing matters. For T debates against performance affs, see above.