Shudak,+Payton

__BIO-__ I am the Lincoln Douglas coach at Millard West in Omaha, Nebraska. I also work as one of the instructors at the Nebraska Debate Institute and have done so for the past three years. I graduated in 2012 and debated three years at Millard West. I competed at a number of National tournaments and won the district and state championship my senior year.

__Paradigm-__ As a judge I don’t feel like it is my place to come into a debate round with a long list of things that I have predetermined as being essential for debaters to do in order to win my ballot. With that being said, I believe that debate needs to be topical and have clear, well warranted clash. Unless a debater is running a blatantly evil case I am likely to vote for any argument that is well explained. I am certainly a judge that follows the flow pretty heavily. For extensions to be granted a debater cannot simply say “Extend my card which says x.” I need a claim, warrant and impact. Also, I am not a big fan of theory debate. However, I will vote off of theory if obvious abuse is present and well explained. But I greatly prefer resolutional debates. Running theory for the sake of running theory is not advantageous if I am in the back of the room though. I am also not a fan of speed. I can keep up with moderate speed but I will probably not get down a majority of what your saying if you go too quickly. So it'd be safer to not speed. Some debaters simply go too quickly for me to flow and most debaters just don’t spread very clearly. I won’t say “clear” or “slow” but I will give you a very perplexed look which should be a good indication that I’m not following you. Give me crystallization and voters at the end of the NR and 2AR. Make it obvious why I should be voting for you.