Duque,+Cyrus

I debated for about three years (2010-13) at Strake Jesuit in LD and have some experience with both local and national tournaments.

__ Shortened philosophy: Run what you want but make sure you justify it. Prioritize and explicitly compare arguments made. Everything should link back to the resolution and a reason for you winning the round. I'll try to not intervene. __

Longer paradigm:

Debate is about making arguments and supporting them against critique. I have no issue with any arguments you choose to make as long as you sufficiently justify them and explain why they mean I should circle your name on the ballot. This means you need to consider the different levels of arguments involved in a round and prioritize them according to your strategy. Most fundamentally, it needs to be settled //in-round// what I am looking to vote for. By default, I view the resolution as a statement to be proven true or not true by the affirmative and negative. If you instead want me to use some other metric, whether a comparative worlds paradigm or a consideration of particular out-of-round issues, you should give reasons why and address your opponent's objections. Once the role of the ballot is established (whether by argument or neither debater challenging the default), it broadly becomes a contest of who better warrants their claims to that role.

__ Clash and dropped/new/extended arguments, etc. :__ Engaging your opponent's arguments is important. You should aim to address all of your opponent's relevant claims and extend your key arguments in each of your speeches. A good extension includes reiteration of the warrant and impact, as well as addressing any responses made to it. Typically, dropping an argument means I'll consider it conceded (if it's properly extended), and failing to extend one means I'll consider it irrelevant. However, I can be persuaded to overlook a drop or botched extension in certain cases, but only if an argument for doing so is made in-round. If you're absolutely swamped by a negative spread or your opponent was unintelligible in making a certain argument, a hasty extension or refutation can be justified. This is obviously a vague and inevitably subjective threshold, and I'll try to be reasonable. Again, it only comes into play in extreme circumstances. As for totally new arguments made in a context where the opponent can't feasibly respond (usually the 2ar or nr), I probably won't evaluate them.

An area I may differ from other judges relates to my meaning of "relevant claims". As I said, arguments are useless if they aren't connected to the chain of claims ending in the ballot. If you drop one of your opponent's arguments but it was made with no explanation of how it ties into them winning the round, I probably won't consider it. Your speaks will likely suffer, though. Ideally, you should point out which and why arguments aren't important (as quickly as needed). You can respond to claims selectively, but shouldn't completely ignore the irrelevant ones.

Argument comparison is also important. If you just read a card against an argument/another card without telling me why to prefer your evidence, I'll probably go with the first if it's properly extended. For any kind of argument you make or source you provide, give reasons to prefer it and weigh them against your opponent's.

__ Theory :__ Run it if you want but know that I hardly ran it and am not a big fan. I default to reasonability and dropping the argument, not the debater. I don't assume RVI's by default except under competing interps. I'm especially open to "meta" arguments about theory and otherwise creative responses and approaches. The shell doesn't need to have a traditional structure but make sure, like anything else, its justification and implications are clearly stated.

__ Presumption :__ If no arguments are made concerning it, I'll vote for which side I think requires less intervention.

__ Speed :__ I should be alright but I'll say "clear/slow down" if I have to. If I miss an argument (and haven't just said "clear"), I won't hold you accountable and will ask to see it after the round if it's extended and becomes important. Slow down a bit for card names, theory, dense critical philosophy, and other things you really wouldn't want me to miss.

__ Speaker points :__ A 27.5 is average. Gain speaks by prioritizing and comparing arguments effectively. Lose them by dropping arguments (in the lazy way I described before), being an ass, or doing things like blazing through a bunch of unwarranted blips in your case and extending the 7th one to win the round. I will rarely give lower than a 26.

__ A priori's/unorthodox arguments :__ Run whatever. If you don't have a standard then make sure you have a clear link back to the resolution and explain the way in which your arguments meet it.

__ CX :__ Use it how you want but don't be overtly uncooperative and evasive. I won't evaluate arguments made only in CX. If you make a clear concession during CX (i.e. say "yes" or "no" to a simply worded question, ideally repeated and confirmed by the asker), I'll hold you to it. If you try to back out later, you'll probably lose speaks and the argument unless you give good reasons for me not to or convincingly explain that you misunderstood the question asked during CX.

Enjoy the round and do what you want during it (that doesn't distract your opponent). Don't be afraid to run a case with lots of, or even exclusively, analytics; it's much better than using poorly warranted cards as a crutch. Know that I'm most comfortable with philosophy and good framework debates. Almost anything in my judging philosophy can be swayed by arguments made in-round. If you have other questions, feel free to ask.