Wunder,+Raymond


 * Experience**: I am Raymond Wunder, I debated 4 years of Policy at Lincoln High School in Nebraska and am now coaching and judging for them.
 * In broad terms**: I believe tabula rasa doesn't actually exist, but it is my duty to act as close to a blank slate as possible. Otherwise I view the debate in an offense/defense or game maker paradigm. I evaluate the last two columns of my flow exclusively to decide the round. I've debated a fairly wide spectrum of arguments stopping short only of narrative style or performance pieces. The reason I never tried those specific arguments was because I didn't connect with them in a genuine way. Because of this background I am willing and able to listen to any argument that you as a debater genuinely thinks should be able to win you the round.
 * Notice:** I will make some arguments on this entry. I will avoid warranting them. If I hear an argument off this wiki but fail to hear warrants that will hurt you more than if you were to normally fail to warrant an argument
 * Specific arguments:**
 * Traditional policy**: specific and unique arguments always preferred. You should have no issues with well developed policy v policy arguments.
 * Kritiks**: Completely fine with them, I've debated at least one side of most kritiks. I am passingly familiar with most of the literature and understand how they functionally operate within debate. I do not however have an in depth knowledge of most of these arguments and therefore detailed and nuanced arguments need to be explained beyond the tagline. Jargon is not appreciated, merely tolerated because I have to turn in a ballot.
 * Performative Kritiks**: I'll be honest, I have a hard time connecting with them in the way that most of these debaters desire. I do however have an appreciation for the proper two way engagement of debaters with these Ks. I do not appreciate either side using their framework to simply refuse to engage the other side.
 * Framework**: I am willing to vote for framework but think that it is easy to do wrong. Framework tells a judge how to evaluate a round, it does not give you an excuse to ignore the opposition. Framework with other arguments is winnable. 1-off framework will be much harder.
 * Topicality**: Willing to vote for well developed T that gives me a well developed standards debate that justifies a definition for being universally applicable in debate. After the standards is won and your standards are accepted you THEN must win that the violation justifies rejection of the team. This means you should have a separate standards and voters section.
 * Theory**: Always willing to listen, but make your voter clear and be sure as to why we need to reject the argument and what justifies rejecting the team. In round abuse is always preferred to hypotheticals (in part because most of the hypotheticals are logical fallacies and to my astonishment are frequently tagged with the fallacy in the name)
 * Affirmative Case:** I think it is advantageous for everyone involved to engage directly, even if only analytically, with each affirmative advantage and/or their solvency. I will be disappointed if the 1NC signpost contains only off case. This is not to say I will not vote for a negative that only goes off case, but I think every team will be advantaged by directly attacking the case, again, even if only analytically.
 * "Timesuck" arguments:** If you run a position out of the 1NC and you know that you will not go for it unless the other team practically drops it, I will not be happy. I understand that you will run multiple arguments and only go for the most viable, but if any of them were never meant to be viable I will be annoyed. Every argument you run should have a clear purpose that can be in your 2NR. This relates to my opinion on multiple conditional arguments. I am ok with multiple conditional arguments provided they could (not will) have a consistent world in the 2NR wherein all positions are present. Three Ks and a CP that all share a coherent world view? I'd love to see it. A K and a CP that directly contradict each other? I personally am less happy than I could be. It is a personal belief that you can gain an equal negative skew without introducing worlds that contradict each other.
 * Miscellaneous:**
 * Speaker points:** Decided separate and are based on factors such as: did you entertain me? did you confront me with something I was not familiar with? did you provide a pleasant experience for me and your opponents? did you do something meaningful? did you make me want to be here? Make the most of your debate experience, put some effort, and try to find something that is your own.
 * Speak guidelines: 30**, unlikely to be given. It indicates I could see you being a diplomat or politician that could make an impact. Not impossible considering how many debaters do have a huge impact. **28,** You did what I expect of a competitive debater. If both speakers receive over a 28 I anticipate that they will break at this tournament. **25**, Something was seriously deficient about your speaking. **Below 25** is reserved for a penalty to debaters who did something ethically and/or socially unacceptable, both you and your coach will know why you received these speaks because I will discuss it with both of you.
 * Speed:** I haven't met a speed I couldn't flow, but if I do I will be clear about that. Slow means go slower, clear means be clearer. Additionally if you wish to engage in highly detailed and complex debate, I encourage that and it is a good route to my ballot and my points, but you'll need to slow down so that I can get all of those fine details.
 * Presumption:** I've noticed the issue of presumption making its way into a lot of my decision making processes. From this I conclude that I highly value discussions of solvency on all flows, case, K, and CP. I am willing to vote on presumption that flows aff.