Achten,+Greg

Overview
I expect the debate to be conducted as though it were a classroom setting. As such inappropriate behavior, specifically cursing, will not be tolerated. If you choose to curse during the debate expect dramatically lower speaker points. Further, if the behavior of one of the teams crosses the line into what I deem to be inappropriate or highly objectionable behavior I will stop the debate and award a loss to the offending team. Examples of this behavior include but are not limited to highly sexual or sexualized performances, abusive behavior or threats of violences.

Policy
====The main thing you should know about me is that the execution of the argument is almost as important as the quality of the argument. A really good disad with good cards that is poorly explained and poorly extended is not very compelling to me. ====

==== As to other preferences, there are some things you should be aware of. I will fairly listen to and evaluate critiques and have found myself voting on them more and more. If your K is not mainstream you will need to explain it to me. Probably most importantly though, the affirmative can be very critical in front of me but will be way better off if they have a plan or defend a policy alternative. I have a very strong neg leaning on the question of whether the aff should have a plan or should have to defend something. Finally, arguments like “debate is bad” are almost never going to be compelling to me. If I thought debate was bad, I wouldn’t have chosen it as a career, so re-think your strategy if I am your judge and debate bad is a big part of it. ====

====I am also less prone than other judges to vote on topicality. Although I do take a fairly strict view of the topic and am willing to enforce that view when teams do a good job of arguing topicality. One thing I should say about Topicality though is that in order for the negative to win, they need to be able to articulate the specific ground they are losing due to the affirmative’s interpretation. ====

==== I probably err slightly neg. on most theory issues, though I have voted aff. on things like PIC’s bad, etc. so I am not terribly biased. Arguments like “abbreviating USFG is too vague” or “You mispelled enforcement and that’s a VI” are non-starters. Don’t waste your time. If that’s the best you can come up with on this topic in the 1NC you have problems. Theory arguments are generally too underdeveloped for my tastes so if that is your big strategy invest some time. Other than that speed is fine as long as you’re clear. Evidence is extremely important. I have noticed a disturbing trend towards people reading short cards with little or no explanation in them. Cross examination is very important. Cross-ex should be more than I need this card and what is your third answer to X. A good cross-ex will dramatically increase your points, a bad one will hurt them. Everyone in the debate should be courteous. ====

LD

My policy philosophy mostly applies here - my background is almost entirely in coaching policy debate and it is hard for me to separate my years of policy debate experience from the way I judge LD debates.

Having said that here are some things that specifically apply to my LD judging. First, I am strongly opposed to the disturbing trend of every debate becoming a theory debate. I do believe that there is a time and a place for theory debates and that this is an important check on abusive arguments, but in most instances the theory debates I have seen are about inane or non-abusive practices that almost certainly do not rise to the level of being voting issues in my opinion. I think many LD debaters would benefit from learning to explain "reject the argument not the debater" a little better or why even if their opponent wins a theory argument it may not be a voting issue. Having said that I try very hard not impose my views on the debate round and have voted for theory arguments several times this year that I thought were not especially good.

Second, I think that many debates about values/value criteria are very difficult to sort out. Be clear about why justice is more important than util or whatever your value is. Likewise debates about values should basically never turn into theory debates.

Third, the trend of frontloading theory pre-empts into the AC is terrible. It is very, very unlikely that I will vote on poorly explained, blippy theory pre-empts. Your time would be better spent reading cards about the topic.

Speed is not an issue so long as you are clear. If you have other questions please ask.

Last note - I will no longer allow either side time before the start of the debate to preflow. This is no different than saying "I need some time to cut more cards for my aff/neg". This is something that should be done before you get to the tournament let alone before the debate is scheduled to start.