Rivard,+Brandon

=DISCLAIMER: EVERYTHING I SAY MUST BE TAKEN WITH A GRAIN OF SALT - THE ROUND IS YOURS, I WILL VOTE ON ANYTHING THAT EXPLAINED WELL ENOUGH!!! I also encourage questions before the rounds if there are any specific questions that need clarification.=

tl;dr - know the ins and outs of the arguments you run. Good debate mechanics coupled with execution and decision making will get my ballot constantly.

That being said...here's how to pander to me

Affiliation: Sioux Falls Lincoln (Assistant Policy Coach). Experience: I debated for 4 years during high school in and out of my home state of South Dakota. My first two years of debate were strictly policy oriented; however, during my junior and senior year I ran a lot of kritiks (some better than others and with varying levels of proficiency) so I'm fine with voting on anything from T to performance affs.

I have been working closely with Lincoln over the past few years and am currently the assistant coach for our policy team.

__Quals and State Update: Nobody in SD will actually read this edition__ - You can tell me to vote however you want; policy maker, stock issues, tabula rasa, etc. it all works for me. All arguments under the Sun are viable and all styles are welcome.

__China Topic Update__: This is a pretty broad topic but I am decently familiar with the common affirmatives on the topic.

__Surveillance Topic Update__: My experience on the topic is pretty underwhelming. If you have acronyms in your case be sure to have them spelled out for me. Just keep in mind that this is a dense topic that I'm no expert on; as time goes on I'm sure I'll catch on.

My judging philosophy is that each round is a game. As a game, there are implicit and explicit win conditions that must be met to receive the ballot. That means that arguments must stand up by themselves to a certain threshold if they hope to win. For that reason, framing is what I put the most weight upon. I love seeing well put together game strategies tailored to pick apart opponents but well researched generics are fine too. For affirmatives, a well thought out advantage with strong internal link scenarios is much better than five one card scenarios. The same applies to the neg, a single great DA > 20 spec arguments. **__I very much love to see thought put into arguments and strategy; doing so will reward you in front of me.__**
 * __Generic philosophy:__**


 * //Win conditions/Burdens://** These are the standard(ish) ways that debates are won and I use them as a guideline to determine the round. They are all subject to change should I be told otherwise.

Policy round: Impact calc (Magnitude, timeframe, probability, or who accesses them best) Policy round w/ ethics impacts: Util > Deontology or vice versa (impact framing) Policy round w/ counterplan: Neg must prove superior solvency with a net benefit that o/w any potential solvency deficit Policy round with kritik: Will vary from K to K. Usually will center around a single framing issue in an overview (ontology, epistemology, etc)

performance round: Well...we can have a conversation down at the bottom of the page....

//**Speaks:**// 30: Best speaker I've seen all tournament - You are so good that I expect to see you in outrounds and/or winning the tournament. 29: Best speaker in the round - You were clear and provided all the warrants I could ever need. 28: Good speaker - I usually start each debater at around this many points and move up or down accordingly. If you get a 28 at the end of the round, it was because you were a good speaker with a strong grasp on fundamentals. 27: An okay speaker - A couple things may have gone wrong somewhere along the line but you were able to recover. 27's usually mean that you are becoming unclear or at time are very hard to understand. 26 and below: I DO NOT like giving out low speaks and I usually reserve this for speakers that were either offensive or impossible to understand. If you get a 26, something went very wrong.

Specific Issues -

__Speed__: If you happen to be a debate robot and can put out obscene amounts of evidence in a short span of time remember that some of us are only human. Don't be afraid to slow down because clarity will get you further than speed. I never want to have to call a card unless the wording is being highly disputed so If you zoom through all your warrants don't expect me to get them all the first time around.

__Theory:__ I'm fairly open to either side of this debate simply because It was never an issue I felt strong or attached to. Perms might be good, bad, ugly or a consult counterplan might be the devil. I don't know. Those calls are up to the people in the round. I will say that I was irked by multiple conditional counterplans but even then I won't insta-drop you for it. Though, if a theory hail mary is what it takes for you to win the round, feel free.

__Topicality__: Very much like theory. I don't feel a strong attachment to it but I did close for it much more than I'd care to admit. It's all up to interpretation but terrible topicalities are a real non-starter so please don't make me vote on them.

__Disadvantages:__ There isn't much to say about disads. We have all read them from day one so they are a debaters safest bet. Just have a nice and clean overview that explains the thesis of the disad with some impact calc and you will be golden. If you are feeling fancy, throw in a turn or two to spice things up.

__Counterplans:__ A well researched, specific counterplan is beautiful. I firmly believe that the counterplan is the most under-utilized tool in the neg arsenal and should be used in conjunction with a strong internal net benefit grounded in literature surrounding the aff. Any and all theory arguments need to be well explained.

__Kritiks__: I spent a good deal of time working with these so I feel right at home in K rounds. I've read almost all major kritiks at one point or another but if you are going off the beaten path and reading something I've not yet seen be sure to explain it in terms we can all understand. I do hold kritiks to a higher level of scrutiny because they are often very fluid in that they have a shifting win condition that varies from K to K. Make sure it is clear why I should evaluate things a certain way or why I should care. If you don't give me framing then you aren't getting a ballot unless the other team really mishandles something along the way.

__Performance affs/negs:__ I am as happy to be in the back of these rounds as you should be to have me as a judge. I think these rounds are fun and are often the highlight of the tournament for me. I'll be happy to experience the round with you but I will usually stay out of the round as much as I can (I've had people try to talk to me in rounds and ask me questions as a part of their discourse and as of now I have mixed feelings about my role as a judge/participant so for the time being, unless the need arises, I'll most likely stay silent).