Burakovsky,+Arik

I am a fair gameplayer judge. I debated for four years in high school and also during my first year of college, so I have heard just about every argument out there. I am affilitaed with Los Alamos High School in New Mexico. The object of the game of debate is to win the judge’s ballot, and how you do that with your speech is up to you. That being said, I will not tolerate rudeness, intimidation, or personal threats of any kind. Always follow the tournament rules on prep time, computers, and so on. Never card clip or mistime your speeches. Spreading is encouraged, but your clarity and word economy are more important for speaker points.

There are several things I believe in about debate:

First, the flow keeps track of and determines the outcome of the debate. Please go line-by-line and have overviews. There is no way for me to determine a winner without having a roadmap of what was said during a round. Make sure to point out your most important points on the flow in your last rebuttal. Because debate is a communicative activity, I only flow your own words and citations, not the quotes of the authors you cite or the rap music you play from your boombox. Plus, while I almost never flow cross-x, I consider what you say in it binding and I encourage you to reference it.

Second, if the aff says nothing the entire round, the neg wins. I believe in the idea of presumption. Although the notion of what constitutes an aff prima facie burden is debatable, I default neg if I am given no reason to vote aff.

Third, I believe that debate is a game and therefore that both sides should have an equal chance of winning. Theory is always the first thing I look at when evaluating a round because I feel that fairness is an a priori issue. So if you are a cheater, be sure to justify it. And if you are a whiner, be sure to show that there is abuse and explain the remedy you seek to counteract it. Issues of potential abuse, lost education, and so on can flow either direction depending on how they are weighed. Keep in mind that while I love a good theory clash with clear explanations of abuse, I hate a bad one. Even if I feel that something is unfair, it is up to you to explain it. I will not automatically pull the trigger if you go for theory in your last rebuttal.

Fourth, I default to a utilitarian policymaking framework if none other is given. However, I will listen to just about anything when it comes to framework debates. Feel free to challenge any commonly-recognized morals or values you want to.

I enjoy seeing a debate with well-developed grounds, claims, and warrants. Reading cards will only get you so far. It is your job to analyze and synthesize your evidence. I will only look at your evidence at the end of the round if it is contentious or to see author qualifications. All types of arguments are fine with me. For a pretty typical round, make sure to weigh impacts on both sides. Disadvantages, counterplans, topicality, and case arguments are all fine. I will listen to seemingly absurd arguments too, as long as you can take them seriously. For a less standard round with kritiks and peformance, just be sure to do enough work explaining your worldview and why you should win. Most of all, I enjoy seeing debaters have fun with the activity, use some humor, and develop bold, creative strategies.