Alexander,+Cody



I was a varsity CX debater for 3 years at Lincoln High School in Sioux Falls, SD under the tutelage of Ms. Kim Maass, NFL National's 2007 Bruno E. Jacob recipient.

In 2006 I was a national qualifier in CX, having won the Rushmore NFL District Tournament Championship. I have also judged approximately 100 CX rounds at various qualifiers since graduating.

To attempt espousing my "philosophy" of debate, it is fair to say that most of my analysis of a round is measured by a tabula rasa politic, i.e if you can convince me of an arguments' merit (any argument), in a persuasive or even pragmatic fashion, I'm libel to vote on it.

Being a "tab" judge, you must establish a framework for me to us as a lens to analyze your discourse. I am comfortable with evaluating any argument that comes about in a round. If both sides fail to establish a framework, or at least communicate one, then nine times out of ten I will revert to a policy maker's perspective--or even still try to elicit a framework what framework I should adopt from the argumentation presented to me, which is not very advantageous to the aff or neg.

I'm comfortable with speed as long as it is intelligible. There is no need for you to adapt your arguments for me as long as said framework is communicated. Critical argumentation is fine, and I am familiar with most of the authors; that being said, you need to explain them well enough for me to vote on them. Theory is fine, but if it is mishandled by either team I can assure you I will take the easy out and vote on it.

Make sure you give ample comparative analysis and provide cogent impact calculus.