Chy,+Charles


 * Background:** I debated 2 years on the national circuit and finished my debate career with a winning record at the TOC (2010).


 * Conflicts:** Lakes High School (WA), Hunter College (NY), Indian Springs (AL), Hendrick Hudson (NY).


 * Short Version:** My paradigm is pretty much the same as everyone else's - I just have a few nuances in terms of evaluating theory (I err aff). I can flow speed as long as it is clear, but slow down especially on taglines/authors. I typically evaluate theory through competing interpretations. Fairness is a voter.


 * Long Version:**


 * Speed:** SLOW DOWN FOR TAGLINES/AUTHORS/SHORT ANALYTICS.Speed is ok. I will yell clear until you are clear but your speaks will suffer after the first time. I won't call for evidence that I wasn't able to flow after the round.


 * Standards:** While it doesn't have to be the Value/Value Criterion model I do prefer that each debater advocate a standard by which I can evaluate the round. Absent a clear standard being won in the round, I will default to a net benefits calculus. Also, if you are running a standard that just functions underneath a broader evaluative standard, I will buy arguments that link to the broader standard as offense. This means that a standard of minimizing torture or maximizing soft power that appeals to a broader standard of consequentialism can't be used to exclude other impacts to consequentialism in front of me.


 * Extensions:** Arguments need to have a claim, **warrant,** and impact, and so do extensions. If you are just extending the claim and impact in your speeches, don't be surprised when I don't evaluate the argument at all. However, arguments that get dropped need less time investment when getting extended (but you still need to be extending a warrant). Additionally, if an argument shifts when you make the extension, I won't evaluate it so clearly label your arguments. This means that if there are like 4 unlabeled framework arguments in the AC, and you extend them in the 1AR as apriori reasons to affirm, I won't vote for them. Finally, I believe in embedded clash which means that I'll assume arguments on the same layers of the debate naturally interact. This means that I'm more likely to evaluate new 2nr/2ar cross applications than other judges and may even compare arguments myself when making my decision but I would prefer to have that done in round.


 * Evidence:** I will call for evidence after the round. Any cards that become important I will look at to make sure that the cards are lined correctly which includes leaving out modifiers. I will not vote down a debater for having bad evidence, but I will completely disregard the claim linked to the evidence being made. Please have citations for everything you read. If your opponent requests to look at the evidence you are reading, you have to show him/her.


 * Weighing:** If you don't weigh in a util debate I default to body count (Note: I will determine strength of link on my own if there isn't weighing done in round - and I do so from a highly skeptical position looking for disjuncture in your link story). I prefer quantitative impacts in that regard instead of vacuous ones like "war" or "cyclical violence".


 * Critical lit:** I've changed my mind - I like K's, but the rule about confusing rhetoric still applies. There's absolutely no reason to hide your arguments (or typically lack of warrants) in impenetrable dialogue and I will nuke your speaks if you do it in front of me (25 and lower).


 * Theory:** SLOW DOWN FOR THEORY ANALYTICS. Theory generally comes before any other issue, you probably will not convince me otherwise. What this means is that if your strategy is to prove that the discursive implication of the K outweighs fairness, you'll probably be upset when I give my RFD. Here's my threshold for theory - I generally see it as an issue of competing interps so if even if you are running a really really bad shell I will vote for it IF you are winning offense on that debate. **However,** the worse your argument the lower my standards are going to be for addressing the shell. This means, your terrible theory shells are most likely NOT worth the time investment because I will err to the other debater in a RVI debate.


 * Answering Theory:** SLOW DOWN FOR THEORY ANALYTICS. You most likely need offense on theory to win theory. By default I see theory as an issue of not just what you do, but what sort of practices in debate you justify. I need to see good weighing between the counterinterp and the interp in order to determine which is preferable or I will be left to my own devices. If you start making random turns on a theory shell I probably won't know how to evaluate them, so if you want offense on theory run a CI. However, I will still listen to reasonability arguments if they are made - this threshold goes down significantly for 1AR's that are answering a dumb NC theory shell. RVI's are fine BUT I will only vote for them on the condition that you are winning your counterinterp. I will ignore RVI's that are run without counterinterps. Finally, save your fairness is not a voter, 1 ar theory bad, and theory bad/justifies holocaust blocks because I will ignore those 90% of the time. **EDIT:** In order to help affirmatives deal with the shitstorm that is theory in the NC I've decided that I will almost always be compelled that theory is an RVI if the affirmative has to go for a counter-interpretation in the 1AR. This doesn't mean that I will default to this understanding but am much more willing to vote for them and am extremely persuaded by the time skew argument. Therefore, if you see theory as part of some sort of strategic layering spread while negating, be prepared to defend those issues in the 2NR.


 * Presumption:** If the debate becomes irresolvable and there are no presumption arguments, I will either vote against the debater who made the debate irresolvable, or I will flip a coin. For instance, if the 2NR goes all in on a theory shell that doesn't link (or that he also links into), and the 2ar goes all in on a counter interpretation but does not read a RVI, I will probably flip a coin. Also, I don't believe terminal defense can exist at a contention level unless an argument is just false, there is always risk of impact to the standard. However, I do think some arguments can function as terminal defense at a framework level, for instance I consider arguments like Taurek or Bostrum terminal on util.


 * Speaks**: I'm pretty nice about them I guess, range is about 27-30. I haven't given out a 30 yet and 90% of debaters stay in the 27-28.5 range but I typically do not think anyone is so terrible as to get lower than a 27.


 * Misc: 1.** Come to the round already pre-flowed. **2.** Bring paper for me! I always forget. **3.** I don't care if you dress up. **4.** I don't care if you read off your laptop. **5.** I don't care if you sit down. **6.** I reserve the right to intervene against arguments that are not factually true. This discretion will **not likely** be used, but if you start telling me Kant's Veil of Ignorance says that we can aggregate happiness you might leave the round complaining about intervention. **7.** I reserve the right to disregard arguments that are not technically (in a debate sense) true. For example, if you run a necessary but insufficient burdens bad theory shell against an opponent who is not running a necessary but insufficient burden, even if he concedes the entire shell I will not vote on the theory debate. **8.** As a debater I'd always ask questions and occasionally argue with my judge; with that in mind, I'm open to any questions (or arguments) you might have, just let me finish the RFD before you start.