Thompson,+Sean

I am a parent judge so you should know what this implies. But if you don't then read on.

General things you should know: I am a parent judge. You should now know not to spread. If I can't hear/understand you then I will not get down your arguements and thus making you lose the debate. If the other team spreads and you don't. Don't worry there the ones that are gonna be in the bad spot. I like funny things in your arguements. If you make me laugh you speaker points are gonna be good. Also this is important to know. I don't know abbrevations. So when you refer to an arguement by abbrevation I will not know what you are talking about. Of course you can still abbrevate but you will have to tell me what that abbrevation means. Idk why you would want to do that though when that takes away your speech time but it is what it is. Underviews are a good idea for me as well. Don't be a troll and if you don't know what I mean don't worry about it then.

For the NEG to know :

T - When you are going for T in your last speech, tell it to me as if it was a story. Run the argument as a step by step thing. An example, first is the definition of the phrase " economic engagement." This author is highly creditable for defining what it means because of X,Y, and Z. Now this is why the aff doesn't meet this definition. Now this is the big reason why the aff should lose this round. This part is the most important to me. Remember I am not accustomed to policy debate so you need to tell me why the aff being untopical is a bad thing.

K - DON'T read them in front of me. I know if you are a k hack then this will change how you will debate but I just don't understand most of them. Plus of course I have my biases. For example, the Cap k. I personally would disagree that capitalism is bad. I mean I am open to you showing why your author breaks down specifically explaining why but it would have to really good evidence. If not I can just buy the aff's capitalism good arguments. If you must, and I mean absolutly must read a k then make sure you break down the arguement in the simplest way possible.

Theory - I am open to a theory debate but I definitly don't like it unless it's nessary. For example CP theory isn't gonna make sense to me. The reason being the abbreviation for all of the terms will just get me lost. I just suggest not to read this type of agruement.

Counterplan - I think they are a really good idea as the negative to win. If you prove that the CP solves better than the plan then you are in a good position in the debate. For the aff, the net benifit debate is gonna be hard to win when I am judging. I don't think I will understand the purpose of net benifit take out is gonna do for you unless you literally explain it step by step. I will understand the perm do both but if the neg says if you do both then you link into the net benefit I will be lost unless you explain what the net benefit is and what does it mean when you say the aff links to the NB.

Disads - THESE ARE THE BEST TOOL FOR THE NEG. If you go for it in your last speech. Make sure you just do a little overview on it. For example, our first piece of evidence that says this is happening now. Next extend our second piece of evidence that says that the affs plan will do this. Next extend our third piece of evidence that says that when the plan does that this will happen. Then our last piece of evidence that that thing that the aff causes to happen is gonna cause this bad thing.

Case debate: Neg put a lot of case arguement on the flow and you will be in a good position to win. Just tell me when the aff is bad. Or why the aff is unrealistic as in the sense of the tech isn't feasible. Or Mexico will say no to the plan. All of those arguements are a good idea.

FOR THE AFF: Just win that the plan is gonna be a good idea and the bad things that the neg claims is gonna happen you solve for or when happen. CLASH is good for me when weighing the round.

LAST THINGS TO Know:

If you have any questions please please please feel free to ask me before the round. I am not a regular judge so there's things that I will do differently. I will not question most of the things that will happen in the round because I don't know what is the norm for a debate round is yet. So please don't take advantage of the lack of knowledge I have. I am not stupid though so don't try to one up me.