Liam+Donnelly

 Feel free to email me if you have questions before rounds, after rounds, or in filling out your strike sheet: liampirate at gmail dot com. Me: 4 years of policy in HS, 2 years of policy at the University of Puget Sound. I have judged about 35 policy rounds each of the past three years. I have been primarily coached by Danielle Jennings and Jame Stevenson. My favorite judges as a competitor were Ben Menzies and Geoff Lundeen; my least favorite was Brandon Silk.   I place a higher premium on explaining and impacting your arguments than other judges - if I don't understand an argument or it's relevance at the end of the debate, it is unlikely that I will vote on it. Increasingly, teams have been so unclear that I have missed a good number of their "arguments" - please know that I don't open your speech docs (if i'm on the email chain at all) until after the 2ar and have no issue with categorically dismissing an argument that I don't understand. Beyond that, i'm a pretty technical judge - i'll primarily use whatever comparisons and framing/filtering arguments are in the final rebuttals to make a decision.I flow CX, and use it to make a decision. I'll read some evidence, but how the debate has broken down will control my reading of it. Substantively, whatever you wish to read in front of me is fine. However, don't assume I am familiar with whatever vocabulary you're using - especially if it's a nuinsced debate about the topic, or a K debate, it is unlikely that I am familiar with your authors, acronyms, etc. weak defaults: competing interpretations over reasonability. No judge-kick of arguments extended in the 2nr. It is possible for me to assign zero risk to an argument (but perhaps not likely enough for me to recommend, from a strategic angle, not extending offense in your final rebuttal). Presumption flips aff when i'm comparing the aff to a world other than the status quo. All of these are up for debate.   I'm more likely to vote on T than on framework - i'm more persuaded by "the aff should be topical" than by "the aff should read a plan," and more persuaded by "we are topical - their interpretation of the topic is bad/the method they require to be topical is bad" than by "being topical is bad." I am a better judge for predictability/limits/ground than for a softer framework (eg democratic deliberation), although fairness and education still ought to be impacted. I am unhappy with the trend of K alts/affs that don't really necessitate a defend-able action - or ones that claim to cause material changes, but don't defend those changes. Half the answers to CX questions about alternatives have subtley become "we'll defend (communism/ending the world/radical action of the week) for the purposes of our solvency, but not any of your arguments." i'm increasingly sympathetic towards calls to err on the side of your advocacy not solving anything when it's unclear what your advocacy does. A similar trend is emerging in how affirmative teams are defending their plans. I have a higher threshold for the specificity of links than others - links to advantages, solvency claims for advocacies, links to DAs, links to Ks. You don't need a specific piece of ev, to be sure, but you at least need some spin if it's a generic link card. If your link argument follows the logic of "X is similar to the aff, and, thus, the consequences of X will be the same as the aff" (a rationale that I see too often), you don't have a link sans further explanation. A lot of the CP debates I have judged both on surveillance and China have been slam-dunks for the negative because the affirmative did not go for theory and didn't have a meaningful solvency deficit. If it steals the aff, go for theory. I am unpersuaded by arguments that, just because a CP has literature on it, it is theoretically legitimate or competitive. (note: I judge a lot more clash of civs rounds than policy roudns - so this is a limited sample). Condo is also getting out of control.    My speaker points are more influenced by debth of explanation and quality of CXs than other judges'. I give higher points to 'smart but not-very-technical' teams than most judges do, and lower points to teams that choose to unsensibly outspread their opponents. My points are roughly average for the tournament I am at (at local tournaments, this is 27.5-28; at larger national tournaments, it's 28-28.5), but they are also far more variant than other judges - I am more likely than others to give a 27.X AND more likely than others to give a 29.X. I believe that good speeches that demonstrate command of argument, strategic thinking, and solid listening skills should get good points; and that poorly explained, under-prepared, illogical argumentation that does not seem to arise from listening to one's opponents should not be coddled with a pity 28.

Don't say exclusionary things. Don't misgender your opponents. Let me know if you need accomodations, or if you need to take a moment in the middle of the debate to preserve personal health.