Johnston,+Taylor

I'm a first year judge (I judged off and on my senior year of high school). I competed in PF in the Houston circut for 3 years, along with dabbling in policy and congress.

__**Policy**__ __**Debate**__


 * Topicality:** Competing interpretations seems the most logical way to view T as long as you justify how your interpretation should be favored over the opposing side (i.e. Standards to Prefer). I also think that a limits/ground argument requires a robust link (e.g. a real violation rooted in an interpretation of the topic that allows a fair amount of aff ground + an explanation of what the topic looks like in the neg interp vs. the aff interp). You can argue as non-contextual as you want, as long as you justify yourself.


 * Theory:** New rebuttel arguments are almost universally allowed to answer theory arguments that took less than 5 seconds to say. I generally use a competing interpretations lens. Most theory is a reason to reject the argument, not the team __if impacted that way by debaters__. Teams should have __offense__ for why their interpretations are good. Teams should also __meet their interpretations__.


 * Condo:** Neg should get multiple worlds. Dispo/Uncondo don’t exist. That is all.


 * Disads:** Favorite off-case argument. I won’t vote on ~10% risk.Probability>Magnitude>Timeframe. Internal links are extremely important when talking about existential scenarios. A well-argued takeout to an internal link may reduce the probability of an impact far enough for me to discount a plausible extinctionary event in favor of a very likely non-extinctionary event that implicates a large scope of people. The link also matters in the same vain. "DA turns the case" by itself is not a full argument.Also "DA turns the case" is often wrong, the DA impact must complicate the aff's ability to solve or access the internal link to the impact, not just be the same impact. The aff should point this out.


 * Case Debate:** I like them. I think solvency debates are underutilized. Moderate risk of disad + very low liklihood of the aff solving = neg ballot in many instances.


 * K:** Not a fan.If you do decide to run a K, please have an alt. Please. You can win the K (and the round) very easily if your opponent doesn’t attack the links in your alt and ability to solve. I am a fan of Zizek, but there are other contemporary philosophers on this Earth.


 * Counterplans:** Reasonable. Most work as long as you explain them thoroughly.


 * Questioning period:** I will allow both sides to vote on whether they want an open questioning period or not. Do not ask questions that lead to nowhere because you are just wasting everyone's time.


 * Speaker points:** Most of you will get 28's unless you were unclear or rude (i.e. racism, sexism, or homophobia) against either myself or your opponents. In certain cases of extreme rudeness, I will vote you down and speak with your coach after the round has concluded. Both 29's and 30's will be awarded to those that present incredible clarity and precision in their speeches, especially if it is on the fly.

IF you have ANY questions regarding my judging philosophy, please ask before the round starts.

(Credits to Derek Ziegler and Sarah Spring)

__**Public Fourm**__


 * Framework:** I am a fan of framework in PF if it is used in the right way. What I mean is that it should have clear and compelling definitions that make it a standard for the whole round. You should be able to defend your definitions well.


 * Any other off-case arguement:** No


 * Speaking:** This is not policy. Speed is ok, as long as you don't spread. If you begin to spread, I will yell "Clear" three times until you slow down; however, if you should refuse, I will put my pen down and stare at you, not flowing anything because I cannot understand you. You should be clear and coherent in your speeches. The logic of your argument must be clear to me. Do not contradict yourself in the same speech. I am mostly a flow judge, but I will be paying extreme attention to your speaking style. Eye contact at important developed arguments and thesis is preferable.


 * The Flow:** I will be flowing every argument that you make, so an outlined case would help me do this inside of wasting time trying to figure out what you are even talking about. I will keep my own opinions on the strength of your arguments and any contradictions that you make, but this will only be pointed out after the round and will have absolutely no impact on my vote. The arguements made by both teams and how well they clash will win you glory in the end.


 * Speaker points:** If you follow my criteria under "speaking" you should at least get 28 speaker points. I only give out 30's on occasion of incredible clarity, precision, and command of the spoken word that also includes critical thought.

IF you have ANY questions regarding my judging philosophy, please ask before the round starts.