Norwood,+Robert

I'm Robert Norwood. I am a current freshman at the at American University dual majoring in economics and interdisciplinary studies (Communication, Legal Institutions, Economics, and Government). Note for paradigm, I haven't thought about debate in like 6 months and am probably forgetting stuff. I'll edit paradigm as tourney goes on.

For questions, or if you just need someone to talk too: Cell: 563-265-5348 Email: robertnorwood6030@gmail.com =LD:=

Overview-
I'm a fan of how The Honorable Lawrence Zhou sets up their paradigm so I'm gonna steal some questions from it.

I debated for Bettendorf High School in Iowa. I'm now a freshman at American University. I haven't done any judging after getting out. (Though did judge novice debates at some tournaments during high school) I'm "doing" parliamentary debate here.
 * 1. Is this person qualified/experienced enough to judge me? **

I make an RFD for both sides. I then try to poke wholes in each to see which is more coherent. Because of this it usually takes me a while to decide. If tab is pressing for quick ballots i'll run the ballot down (if no runners and no tabroom) and then give the oral RFD back in the room or by tab or wherever
 * 2. How do you make the decision? **

I'm willing to listen to any and all types of arguments. However, I vote on something that I can't write a coherent RFD for. So stay away from DnG and stuff like that unless you can explain it really well.
 * 3. Is this person a good judge for the style of arguments that I read in debate? **

1/2 debaters agrees with my decision.
 * 4. Does this person render decisions that I personally agree with? **


 * 5. Are there any things I should know about this judge that I should be aware of? **
 * I hate people who lie/misrepresent their evidence. I will drop with low speaks for doing that.
 * No paraphrased evidence. None, nada, zip

Only if well warranted, which is really hard to do considering almost everyone, including me, doesn't agree with racism, sexism, ableism, etc. Even if you win, I'll probably substantially drop your speaks to the point where you won't break.
 * 6. Will you vote for things that are racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, etc?**

Disclosure-

 * By no means required, but heavily encouraged to do so on the wiki or by talking with your opponent on email/facebook before the round
 * Email/facebook disclosure is fine.
 * Disclosure theory- I'm willing to vote for it as with any argument
 * If disclosure takes place
 * Whatever you disclose on email/facebook as what you are going to run, must be what you end up running. No switching after you disclose
 * Wiki disclosure does not have to include what you are going to run
 * If an objection to the AC or 1NC/1NR is made in the form of a theory argument, and that objection could have been made before the start of the round due to disclosure (i.e. "I think the AC plan that was disclosed ahead of time is bad) and that objection was not made, I will be extremely receptive to responding to the theory with "you should have asked me not to run it before the round"
 * I'll check the wiki before the round. You get an extra 0.2 speaks for disclosing on the wiki

Flashing-
flashing with opponent: flashing with judge:
 * If you agree to flash with your opponent, you must flash for each speech and include every card. Failure to do so will result in a 2 point speaker penalty. If you just forget to flash a card or two, I'll take off 0.5 speaks
 * You can email, use a flash drive, or airdrop. I'll allow passing papers only if you do not use a laptop at all in the round.
 * You opponent gets to keep the speech docs until the end of the RFD. (They are free to lookup your cards to check accuracy while I'm making my decision)
 * If your opponent asks you to delete the speech docs after the RFD, please do it.
 * No obsessively insisting to search your opponents computer to make sure they deleted it. (I've seen people do a system search for their opponents docs. Peoples computers are their own property and deserve privacy.) We are all adults and should be trusted.
 * If you both decide to flash, +0.2 speaks. (I believe flashing improves evidence honesty
 * I suck at flowing, please include me in the flashing/email chain. (+0.2 speaks for judge inclusion)
 * You are not required to include me in the chain. However, you may have to speak slower than your opponent so I can keep up. (I won't punitively have you go any slower than I can flow though)
 * if you flash with the judge you must flash with your opponent

Speaking-

 * For the love of god **signpost**, there is nothing worse than flowing a round where you have no idea where to flow
 * I really like Chetan Hertzig's paradigm on what they will increase and decrease speaks for. I really respect Hertzig as a judge.
 * Caveat: I prefer you too stand but I won't take speaks if you don't.
 * I try to be consistent with speaker points. My average will always remain at 28, +- 0.2. I keep a running excel spreadsheet to keep track of this. Starting Glenbrooks 2017, I will keep a public excel spreadsheet with the debaters, winner, speaks, and what I voted on. I'll link this spreadsheet when the tournament begins. This 28 average will not include speaks that people lose for evidence problems or gain from disclosure or flashing.

Theory-

 * I am fine with theory
 * Defaults (These are just defaults. If they are talked about at all, I throw the defaults out the window and go on what the debaters say):
 * RVIs good
 * Counter-interps not needed
 * paragraph theory bad
 * FOR THE LOVE OF GOD SLOW DOWN ON THE TEXT OF THE INTERP

Ks:

 * love em'
 * keep them simple. I can't vote for things that I can't write a coherent RFD on.

CPs:

 * go for them
 * not a fan of things like 50 state CPs and the like, but will vote for them.

Narratives:

 * NO!
 * You can run them if you wish. However, you can not make a ROB argument that presenting the narrative in any way should win you the round or give you an advantage. Thus, you can read the narrative part by itself, but that gives you no strategic advantage.

Other:

 * Your health is more important than a debate round. If the debate gets to a place where you need a mental break for your mental health please say so and we can pause the round. I will try to pause the round if I think the debaters need a quick break, but I might not catch it all the time. If you need, or you think your opponent needs, a quick break from the round please speak up.

=PF:=

As with LD, I'm willing to listen to any and all arguments. I will presume util unless told to otherwise. (Literally just say "Use x, not util." Don't even have to justify it unless your opponent disagrees)

However, I feel that PF has gotten to be a little //creative// with their evidence. First, you must have the full source available to me. You can use wifi to bring up the full source after the round if I ask. Second, **all evidence must be directly quoted. No paraphrased evidence is allowed.** You can do the "highlight one word from each sentence" like LD (of course you must not say something that the author isn't meaning to say.) Paraphrased evidence __will__ result in a drop with a speaker point penalty. (-5 of what you otherwise would have gotten for __both__ partners.) If you read paraphrased evidence, I **will** call for it. Explanation of what happens next below.

I will call for any card after the round that remotely sounds suspicious. If I think a card is misrepresentative of what the author is saying I will ask you to defend your representation of it. Afterwards, if I determine that there was misrepresentation it is a loss with 20 speaks. You will be reported to tab and your coach. There is one exception: If you read a card in the round, and within the round decide to drop the card with the admission that it was misrepresented (you can admit after your opponent calls you out. You can only admit in your speech time or during CX), you will receive a drop and 24 speaks (20 if it was a misrepresented paraphrased card). You will not be reported to tab or your coach in that instance.

If you have **any** inclination to in any way misrepresent your evidence, I highly suggest striking me as a judge.

APDA:
lol we don't have paradigms, theres not even evidence