Mullen,+Wilson

Alright, let’s do this. First, a little bit about myself. Many of you may think I am inexperienced, as I did high school policy debate for only 3 years in Ohio, for a little known school called Oakwood. However, I believe I am as competent as many of you out there. I qualified for NFLs my senior year, I semi-finalled at our State competition. I may not have debated in the TOC, but I can hold my own.

 A few things you should know about me:

-I try my very best to judge by my flow; this means that if an argument is dropped, I will probably consider it true. So don’t drop things. If the aff drops a 2NC ASPEC, I will vote on it. Even though I don’t personally think ASPEC is a great argument. So don’t drop things, even if they are dumb. You would be surprised at how many debates are won by dumb arguments.

-I try to decide my debates based on the rhetorical skills and actual “debating” of the debaters, not the quality of evidence. In a rhetorical activity, you should win or lose a debate based on RHETORIC. That being said, don’t cut your evidence from blogs unless you can find legitimate warrants for the author. I really prefer to not read evidence after the round, but if you tell me to look at it, I will look at it.

-Framing decides debates. Strategic vision in a debate is absolutely essential. As debaters, I expect you to answer the important questions in the round for me. Under what lens do I view the round? How do I evaluate framework? Do existential threats matter more than kritikal threats in impact calculus? I cannot evaluate the round if I do not have a frame to evaluate it through.

-I do my very best to leave all prior opinions about debate outside of each round. While I may be more persuaded by some arguments than others, this does not mean I will not vote for them.

-If you give an amazing speech, you will be rewarded. I have experienced debates all too many times where there were people that deserved 30 speaks, and only got 26. If you deserve them, I’ll give them.

-If you can make me laugh during round, I’ll reward you. That’s a sign of a confident speaker.

-Be nice and courteous. Please. I believe that debaters are good people at heart. Don’t make me think otherwise, or your speaks will suffer harshly.

-If you use any racial slurs, endorsements of the Holocaust or genocide, etc.; I will vote you down without question, even if the other team starts to argue against themselves.

-I love interesting affirmatives and counterplans. I always prided myself on having unique and non-generic affirmatives. (e.g. super specific solvency mechanisms, etc.)

-Off topic, but //Fight Club// is the best movie/book combo in the history of everything. I absolutely love that movie. If you like it too, go ahead and ask me about it.

Okay, let’s get onto specific areas of argumentation:
 * 1) Topicality: I was never a very good topicality debater. I always found them extremely rushed, I was never able to catch the most important parts. I don’t like to see T run as a time suck, I’d rather the neg read another link and impact to their DA, or more solvency for the CP, etc. If you decide to go for T, you are gonna have to explain it. If they drop a standard, tell me why that should doom them.
 * 2) Kritiks: I enjoy Kritiks. That being said, I’m not the most widely read judge on the circuit by any means. Thus, if you aren’t sure whether I know the philosophy of a certain author, I would err on the safe side and do some cohesive and clear explanation in your final speeches. If I am nodding and I make an indication to move on, you can assume that I understand the author and pick up your pace. I enjoy Kritiks that deal more with the topic than generic Ks. Example: on the space topic, my favorite K to run was Astropolitics (space security). It was VERY topic specific, and was a very real world oriented kritik that most judges, even non-K judges, found appealing. In other words, if you can link the K to the specific aff, I’ll enjoy it more. I don’t like generic links too much, but if you can pull out lines from the 1AC or cross-x and use those as links, awesome. All fair game. As I said prior, you guys need to make sure that you explain framework. I need to know how to evaluate the debate. Finally, you all really need to make sure you are CLEAR on your kritiks. If you run a K, you need to UNDERSTAND IT. The best indication as to whether you can UNDERSTAND something is for you to be able to explain it, not only in cross-x but also to me.
 * 3) Theory: I will vote on theory. I don’t love it, but I will vote on it. I really prefer to not vote on generic theory, so don’t drop silly standards that lose you the debate. And while I don’t LIKE to vote on it, I will be much more willing to consider it if you actually spend time on it and articulate the actual violation and its impact.
 * 4) <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 12pt;">Performance: I had only one debate where I faced a performance team. I did not like that debate. That being said, if you win on performance, I will vote you up. I will not punish you by any means for being performance. I may be a bit trigger happy on Framework, but if you clearly win on performance, I will give you the ballot.
 * 5) <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 12pt;">Role of the Ballot: I LOVE role of the ballot arguments. I believe these arguments are **//essential//** in any framework argument, and if you can explain it well, it will pay dividends for you.
 * 6) <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 12pt;">Conditionality: I lean on the side of conditionality being okay. In my personal opinion, I think anywhere up to 4 or 5 conditional arguments are good, as long as they are articulated well. But if the neg drops conditionality bad while only running two conditional advocacies, I will vote on the theory. So be careful.
 * 7) <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 12pt;">I like impact calc, but don’t glorify it. There doesn't need to be a new sheet of paper in my opinion. In the absence of other substantive debate, I default to saving the maximum amount of lives possible, and I can be persuaded by “try or die” arguments.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 12pt;">I want debate to be an enjoyable experience for all of you. Run what you like, and I will try to be as objective as possible. Have fun you guys J