Findley,+Burke

This is updated for FBK 2017.

Brief Bio: I did debate for 4 years at Boca Raton Community High School. I did 1 year of congress, 3 years of LD, and did some policy debating my senior year. I was mostly a tech LD debater. In my 4 years I broke at states in LD my senior year, I qualified to NCFLs in LD my junior year and for policy my senior year, and qualified for NSDA in LD my senior year, but was unable attend as I had mono. I am currently a sophomore at the University of Florida, studying political science, philosophy, and economics, with a minor in communications. I have been out of debate for a while, my last experience was judging LD at Blue Key last year. As such, my spreading ear is not as good as it used to be. If you have any questions, email me at burkefindleydebate@gmail.com (can't promise I will see it, but I will try to check this regularly throughout, and leading up to, the tournament)

=Brief overview to read if on the way to round:=

__**Generics about how I judge:**__ I'm cool with just about anything. Weigh the round clearly, and tell me where and why to vote for you. When judging, I will be analyzing the logical construction of your arguments and the weighing. I'm open to weighing logic against cards, but unsubstantiated claims will not work with me.

__**Speed:**__ I was fine with speed when I did the event, but it has been a bit of time for me. I don't mind spreading but I ask that you keep it clear. I will say slow and clear, but will only say after it reaches a point where I can't comprehend what you are saying. Also, please __slow down__ for __taglines__, __author names__, __theory__ interps, __plan texts__, or anything that you feel I need to have almost word for word.

__**K's**__ I'm fine with K's, but I like to see a very clear link into the K. I will drop the K if I don't see any link. It's the job of the person running the K to prove it does link, not the job of the person you are running it against to prove why it doesn't. Now, this doesn't mean you can just say "it doesn't link." But in the case where it becomes a wash I will vote against the K linking.

__**Theory**__ Avoid frivolous theory. If there is a legitimate abuse please run theory. Definition of frivolous theory: theory that pretends an abuse exists when it's completely bs. for example: aff must run a plan... Now, I do not consider fun theory to be frivolous theory. For example, a teammate of mine back in high school ran a shell saying that the winner is whoever can produce the most Pokemon cards. If argued well, and the shell is detailed I'll listen to it, and weigh it. So don't be shy, make the round enjoyable if you can. Default positions: No RVI's and Drop the argument (although I will change if any reason to default otherwise is presented in round)

__**Skep**__ Don't run it unless 1. you can run it really well or 2. its unique I find skep to be quite boring and overdone. it seems to be more of a cop-out that debaters use against a framework that they aren't prepared for. I would much rather see a logical rebuttal of the framework than skep as to why the framework may not matter... Nonetheless, I try to enter the round with a blank slate... but I still don't love skep, but I'll judge it anyways.

How to get a 30?
 * __Speaks__**
 * clear weighing
 * organized voters that actually help me place my ballot
 * speaking that isn't all over the place, I can actually understand you and follow your argument (more organization in speech makes it easier to give a 30)
 * JOKES (Don't push jokes if you aren't funny... but if you can I really enjoy __sarcasm__ and __puns__ and __funny explanatory stories__)
 * **NOT** spreading too fast at 9 or earlier in the morning or after 8 at night
 * really **obscure** (but well put together) arguments
 * Food (gummies are my favorite)

=__**More Extensive Paradigm**__=

__**Speed**__ I was fine with speed when I did the event, but it has been a bit of time for me. I don't mind spreading but I ask that you keep it clear. I will say slow, clear, and loud, but will only say after it reaches a point where I can't comprehend what you are saying. Slow means you have gone a bit too fast, loud means you are too quiet and are not loud enough (i don't mind if you are too loud, so don't be afraid to talk loudly), and clear means you are too garbled and I can't make out what you are saying. I will say this as many times as it takes, and will only drop speaks if it becomes obvious you aren't taking my calls into account. I won't drop speaks if I have to say clear, you fix it, then get worse a bit later and I have to say it again, but if I say it twice and there is no improvement after the second time, I will stop saying it and drop speaks. Also, please __slow down__ for __taglines__, __author names__, __theory__ interps, __plan texts__, or anything that you feel I need to have almost word for word.

__**K's**__ I never really debate K's in high school and never really read much of the K lit that is often used. That being said err on the side of overexplaining instead of assuming I know the author and can probably fill in exactly what the K is. Make the K actually link in. I hate K's that don't link in. If you are going to run a K it is your job to prove it links not the other way around. I won't instantly vote if someone says "it doesn't link, still give me a reason, just know that the runner of the K has the burden to prove it links) With ROTB's avoid assumptions that certain problems (such as Racism) trump other standards for evaluating who the ballot goes to. Give me reasons other than, for example, racism is bad. (i am not saying racism is not inherently bad, but weigh for me why the badness of racism trumps other possible ROTB). Show me why the discussion of, solvency of, or the existence of is a clear reason to go with the K. Also... make sure the explanation for HOW the ballot can fulfill this role is well done... I like a K when they are done well and I find them very persuasive in terms of voting but poor K's stand out and will probably cost you.

__**Counterplans and Plans**__ A good plan and counterplan debate is fun, but at the point where the debate becomes more abusive, for example running a CP with the intent on kicking it in the next speech, I lose interest and get annoyed. If you are going to run a CP or a plan go all the way in with them or at least use them as part of your weighing for the round. I don't mind a CP being one of multiple offs but just don't run it purely as a time suck. I'll still vote off of a time suck strat but in the case of a close round, I may be more hesitant to. (this goes for any argument but I have seen it mostly done with CP's). Also, not bringing up a CP doesn't count as kicking it, its dropping it, and, if there are turns to the CP, and the CP is kicked, I will keep the turns on my flow, turns will not be dropped, and if the aff/neg wishes to, can be linked to a different voting issue without remaking the argument, or as proof that other alternatives fail to solve the problem of the aff/neg.

__**Theory**__ I like theory debates in that it is less of a prep battle (as some rounds seem to be) and more raw arguments. As a result, some frivolous theory rounds I will find very entertaining. But this is limited to random frivolous theory. Frivolous theory that consists of a theory file that you pull up as a last resort because you cannot think of a single response in the 1AR or as a time suck because you have 30 seconds left to fill in a speech will not get you anywhere with me. I see theory as a way for debaters to argue with their argumentation skills, not with their prepping skills. I understand how theory files can be needed to rectify abuse in round, but I see them as a cheap strat when used because you can't think of anything else to run. __If you are going to run frivolous theory as a way to win make it entertaining for me. It can be as crazy as your imagination just give me a reason to vote for it.__

I usually give speaks of 29 to the winner and 28 to the runner-up, but, this range can be increased or decreased with the quality of the round. How to get a 30?
 * __Speaks__**
 * clear **weighing**
 * organized **voters** that actually help me place my ballot
 * speaking that isn't all over the place, I can actually understand you and follow your argument (more **organization** in speech makes it easier to give a 30)
 * **JOKES** (Don't push jokes if you aren't funny... but if you can I really enjoy __sarcasm__ and __puns__ and __funny explanatory stories__)
 * **NOT** spreading too fast at 9 or earlier in the morning or after 8 at night
 * really obscure (and well put together) arguments

__**Misc.**__
 * I will vote for pretty much any argument as long as 1) it isn't intentionally or blatantly offensive 2) you can give me a reason that outweighs and is extended to the end of the round to support it. My favorite arguments were the ones that were very sketchy and obscure with complex link chains, but were argued coherently and followed logically through their reasoning.
 * I am fine with debaters and spectators asking questions after and before the round, but arguing with me over my decision will result in lowered speaks. The decision is final. If I missed something it is your fault for not clearing explaining why it outweighs or wins the round.
 * I really like it when debaters save about 30 seconds in their last speech to slow down (or not even spread if you can :) and provide me with a crystal clear roadmap summarizing why they won.
 * If you are offensive or rude in the round your speaks will not be higher than 15, and will probably be as low as the tournament will allow.
 * Please try to be on time to the round... I understand at certain tournaments conditions and the time window they give you to get to rounds can be unrealistic but I will not wait an hour for you to show up. (this has happened to me)
 * I am fine with spectators but IF you are going to spectate in prelims I request that you do not flow the round.