Stroud,+Micheal

i respect debate and the debaters who work so hard to constantly improve it tremendously. i aim to work as hard judging debates as you do debating them, and pledge to remain attentive, open, and focused throughout the debate. when i was debating, i primarily engaged in critiques of ontology and epistemology. this does not mean i long to hear debates on those subjects, nor does it mean i am only familiar with those subjects outside debate. i will attempt follow the criteria established by you to decide the debate. in the absence of any clear and sensible guidelines, it is very likely i will default to my own knowledge of debate, strategy, tactics and history. i am frustrated by the colossal wastes of time i see in debates. by the clock debates should be 92 minutes. people have to use the bathroom, thats fine. people mistype email addresses, thats fine too. but if your debate takes more than 110 minutes (and its not my fault), im going to start docking points. this is partially as a corrective to what i consider a detriment to tournament schedules, but also because i see you prepping when the timers not going. a few judges i look up to, and strive to emulate: teddy, jeff roberts, phil samuels, sarah lundeen, russell, ruth, crowe, hester, deven, koslow, varda. im not exactly like any one of these people, but they (and so many others) have taught me so much that listing their influence on me is probably helpful to you. the debates i like best are, i imagine, the debates you like best; humorous, enlightening, affecting, rigorous, topical. i dislike the opposite: gravity beyond the dictates of the argument; debates in which gendered, racist, ableist, or exclusionary language is used; debaters who are bored or miserable; overdetermined techne; under-structured prose; debates featuring a lack of clash or clarity, or lacking any relation to the current resolution, cheating. tl;dr you do you. glhf im not a new judge, but may be new to you. ive asked my former debate partner and best friend michael ely to write up some of his considerations about how i may judge debates. his thoughts follow: Hello. My name is Michael Ely and I am writing this to (hopefully) inform you a little bit about how Stroud might view your round. He is my best friend and my roommate, so (hopefully) I know him pretty well. Here is how I think his mind might work in round. Big Lebowski references: Make them. Stylistic notes: What I can tell you is this, he wants to reward smart and punish stupid. What this means for you in short and simple terms is this, make smart arguments (however few and far between) = you win. Make dumb arguments (all over the place and without thought, just for the sake of ethos and flow) = you lose. I debated with him, I coached him (kind of), and he and I have constant talks about what debate might mean. He is insightful and helpful. He is informative and, at times, combative (in a good way) and there is nothing more you can want in a judge than that. He will listen to every word you say. He will give it careful consideration. He wants you to be smart. Unlike most of the judges out there, he wants to be challenged. Make three smart arguments, rather than fifteen dumb ones, and you have your number one in a pool of three hundred. I guarantee it. Reading notes: Stroud debated a bit slower than some debaters out there, a side effect of age. However, unlike some unfortunate souls in this community, both of his ears work fine. If you want to fly through your aff, do it. But do it well. No judge, especially Stroud, wants hear you mumble every other word. If you want to go slow, go slow. If you want to rap, do it. Do whatever you like, just do it well. Substance notes: Again, Stroud doesn’t care what you say, as long as you say it well. I will try and go through some specific stuff to elucidate how he might feel about it. Other than that, there is one last note. Stroud is incredibly devoted, and wants to listen. However, he often looks grumpy. You will have to see past the frustrated eyes, and the glorious, glorious beard (seriously, it is mighty). Know that he is one of the best judges in the country, and one of the most compassionate guys I know, and if you put yourself out there, you will have an incredible RFD, and a guy you will want to talk to in and out of round at every tournament. If you have any other questions, let me know. Good luck, and have fun. -Ely
 * 1) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">K’s – Read ‘em if ya like ‘em. Stroud is down for whatever. Particularly, he went for a lot of Spanos, Baudrillard, Heidegger on occasion, some cap business, and (with his best looking partner) a lot of Deleuze and Guattari. With that said, there are some things you need to do. Quit constantly talking about your link. You should explain them, but the likelihood that you will win a link is pretty high. Talk a lot about your alternative. Explain how it resolves the disads to the affirmative, and do it without falling into the trap of a lot of k debaters where you use hyperbolic statements all the time. This is frustrating. Be honest about how your alt might resolve some of these issues, and be honest about what you are losing. With that said, IMPACTS, IMPACTS, IMPACTS! He loves ‘em. Can’t get enough of ‘em. Especially impact turns. This is where you should put a lot of your focus. Make the debate a question of competing impacts, and explain why the other team doesn’t get access to theirs. Pair that with some decent alt solvency and you should have a decision to write home about.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">With all of that said, why are you all not reading the cap k in front of Stroud? I don’t mean the neoliberalism k. Don’t just criticize one part of capitalism, get down to brass tacks, and read a big old cap k. He will like it. Even if he looks grumpy, he will actually be pleased. The grumpiness is simply a part of being a Trotskyite.
 * 1) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Counterplans – Read ‘em. Just make sure that you have a clear story about how the counterplan text resolves the disad to the affirmative. Furthermore, make sure you have a clear story for how you solve for your net benefit. And, make sure you describe how the counterplan resolves all of, or at least part of, the affirmative. Then, put your focus on the disad.
 * 2) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Disads – This is basically a gigantic impact debate. I can’t think of anyone better to have in the back of the room for one of these debates. Again, see the K part above (you can use that section for pretty much any strategy). You should be doing serious impact calculation here, and you should challenge your opponents on their impact claims throughout. Do this, and you will be golden. Don’t do it, and you will be in a world of hurt.
 * 3) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Framework and T – While people have told me these are very different, I am just going to cover them together. Stroud and I agree about these strategies, especially framework. Framework is the greatest kritik ever written. With that said, make sure you read a violation. Even if the other team is clearly non-topical, or obviously doesn’t use the USFG, the violation is your link, and he will be upset if you don’t have one. Then, give a good amount of time to your interpretation. This is your alternative, and your chance to explain what the debate world looks like to you. See the k section on alternative solvency, and apply it here. You should explain how your interpretation will solve for the disads to the aff, and you should do so with examples. Remember, put their aff into the context of your interpretation. That means, you should come up with some examples of topical affs they could have read that would still resolve their concerns with how the world operates. Finally, spend a good deal of time on your voting issues. These are your impacts. Stroud loves impacts. Make sure you have a good story, and do it right.
 * 4) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Affirmatives – Be smart. Be strategic. Mind the 2AC add-ons, though. Don’t spend one minute of your 2AC extending the case, one minute answering the whatever, and seven minutes reading an add-on. That is stupid. He will hate it. Every other judge will hate it. And, you will also kind of hate it. Instead, make bold decisions, and go for them. He will enjoy it. At least, he will respect you for it, and he will want to listen to what you have to say.