Cradit,+Anthony+B.

Arizona State University**
 * Cradit, Anthony B.
 * Unaffiliated**


 * Paradigm:**

As a judge, I consider myself to be //tabula rasa//. It does not actually matter to me what you run, as long as you give justification for it. That goes for both the affirmative and the negative team. If the affirmative team opts not to present a plan, perfect. Give me a reason why that’s awesome / okay. Make sure you can explain why your alternative is more important than the abuse arguments the negative team is inevitably going to claim because you’re being abusive.


 * Theory:**

As far as debate theory is concerned, I love it. Theory debates, like topicality debates, are awesome, __when those debating know what they’re doing__. “Voter for fairness” is not a reason to vote. Give me an actual reason. Cite specific instances of abuse. Tell me why I care. If you’re going to make claims about precedents that the debaters set, however, be careful. I tend to believe that each individual debate is constructed by those in the round and that it changes on a round to round basis. Precedents are rarely, if ever, actually set.


 * Line By Line:**

Impact calculus is not a substitute for actual argumentation. It is going to be difficult for you to win an argument if your only answer is “we outweigh.” Impact calculus is an important tie-breaker, but it doesn’t get you to the finish line.

Also, if I don’t get it on the flow, that’s your fault. I can flow most any intelligible speed, but if you need to make sure I got something, make sure you do so.

Additionally, it is __extremely__ important for you to actually argue in the round. Clash is a surprisingly novel concept in debate. I actually do expect you to engage your opponent.


 * Critiques:**

Critical arguments are legitimate and I will vote on them. I do not understand why discussing methods of advocating policies is not part of the policymaking debate.


 * Disclosure:**

I will always disclose and critique the debaters because as a debater it was something I expected. You are welcome to argue with my decision, as long as you remain polite and respectful. If it moves beyond that, I will stop the critique and make sure speaker points reflect the debater’s actions.


 * Speaker Points:**

I assign speaker points based on how clear and concise the speeches are, the quality of argumentation in the rebuttal speeches, and how pointed and polite the cross-x period is. I will give extra points to anyone who is clever or funny.