Kallattil,+Divia

Maintain integrity (no abuse) Be rational Speak clearly and in an organized manner (organization determines speaker points) Crystallize Warrant substantively Lean towards a traditional style
 * TL;DR:**

__**Background:**__ I debated for 3 years at Ardrey Kell High School, in some Public Forum, but for the most part in Lincoln Douglas. Most, if not all, of my debate experience is from the largely traditional North Carolina local circuit, with the exception of CFLs and Wake, if you count those. Since then, I've been a casual judge for my high school. I'm currently a student at UNC-Chapel Hill double majoring in Computer Science and Information Science.

__**Paradigm:**__ I judge in a way that reflects my experience. I like substantive, well warranted arguments that create clash. I also treat the Value/Value Criterion as my weighing mechanism. Some specifics:

Simply warranting your argument with a name (philosopher, organization, individual) is __not__ sufficient. If your argument is refuted or called into question, you must explain to me why the argument stands in and of itself. In that vein, justifying your arguments to me rationally but without some expert backing may be enough, depending on how you justify it. However, evidence is preferred, if not necessary.
 * // Substance //**

Please crystallize. Extend your arguments, weigh your impacts, and prove to me that you've won under whatever framework you feel was best upheld in the debate round. On that note - you can win the argument despite losing framework, so long as you justify to me why your case better fulfills/still stands the opponents framework. Also, don't just drop arguments.

//**Speed**// Don't spread, but you can speak fairly quickly, so long as you're clear. If I feel you're speaking too quickly, I won't hesitate to shout "clear".

Counterplans are discouraged. However, I may accept one on certain conditions. You __must__ prove to me that your counterplan is mutually exclusive and competitive (no PICs). Simply presenting a counterplan does not negate the resolution. You still have an obligation as the negative debater to show me why the affirmative world is ethically unsound. Counterplans can complement your argument, but to me, cannot function as the core. Generally speaking, try to avoid them.
 * //Counterplans, Theory, Kritiks//**

Theory is also discouraged. Don't run theory shells for the sake of having them. I really only accept theory in the face of __legitimate abuse__. Examples of what I see as legitimate abuse are, as stated above, PICs, abusive definitions, observations that limit clash, etc. That being said, my ballot will be based off of arguments you present.

In all honesty, I have a limited understanding of Kritiks due to my lack of experience with them. I never ran them and really only hit them a handful of times. If you choose to run one, there is a high chance that I will judge you badly due to this lack of experience. This same principle applies to other types of arguments that I haven't addressed (mostly) Don't put me in a position where I may have to be a bad judge, for your sake and mine. Ask me specific questions before the round.