Burgess,+Chad

Conflicts: Turlock High School, Sacred Heart High School AT (MA), Timber Creek BM School: Turlock HS '10-'14, UCSC class of 2018 Last updated: April 16th, 2016 (CHSSA State)

__**For PF:**__ Do whatever you want And, you have SO much time in a speech, you can easily make at least 1 response to args on your case, just don't extend through ink or ignore them
 * BUT,** Please make good arguments, with warrants

__**For debaters reading this as they walk to their room**__ Run what you want Speed and lay are ok Clarity over quantity Plans and CPs are ok I dislike skep and it will be very hard to get me to vote on it I will not vote on presumption, there is always offense elsewhere Resumption isn't an arg Ks are ok (I ran Ks but they were superficial at best because I am not versed in all the lit, so only run the K if you are confident you can explain it to me) Micropolitical positions are usually ok Try not to run frivolous theory, but it is good when it is used to check abuse Explain your FW as much as possible I have a low threshold for extensions I enjoy overviews and and you explaining to me why I vote for you Speaks are based on how i feel you compare to the rest of the field I default reasonability and default that reasonability means I gutcheck I default drop the arg Anything else just ask!

__**For B-flight debaters**__ I debated 4 years in LD, 2 on circuit for Turlock High School in Central California. I have made numerous outrounds for both lay and circuit style LD. I placed 2nd at CHSSA State for PF. I made it to the bidround at UPS and outrounds at other bid tournaments that I cannot remember.

My general philosophy is that you should run what you want. I recognize that I am not the best judge for some things, but if you explain the argument then I will likely vote on it.

Speed: Go ahead and spread. It has been some time since I have spread and thus my flowing isn't in full form, so start slower and build your speed up. I am not against slow debate as I find both lay and circuit debate rather valuable, but I prefer fast debate. If your opponent asks you to not spread then I would like it if you complied with that. I just hope that both debaters cant be on the same level of speed, its better for the activity. Also I won't vote on the speed K because I think speed is good for debate.

Framework: Run whatever framework you want but for phil frameworks that aren't common and complex in nature, such as a Hagel fw, explain as much as possible. Generic fws, like util or a deont fw, need less explanation but I won't automatically presume your "really really good fw card" is true, explaining can only help. I generally read util frameworks but I can understand most frameworks. I prefer philosophically justified frameworks over theoretically justified ones. I do not enjoy AEC(aff choosing the ethical framework), but will vote on AFC(aff choosing the role of the ballot), understand the difference.

Theory: Don't run frivolous theory. Theory should be used as a tool to check abuse. I am probably more willing to vote on theory than other judges with the caveat that not all theory is drop the debater. If you read theory with drop the arg, then I am perfectly fine on doing so. However, drop the arg does NOT mean drop the debater, I will just re evaluate the round without that arg. For example, dropping the arg for a plan does not mean aff loses, it simply means i evaluate aff offense based on the entirety of the rez. Not everything is a voting issue. I default to reasonability in the absence of arguments for competing interps or reasonability. Fairness and education are most likely voters, explain which is more important. There might be other voters. I don't hold the debaters to a strict reading of an interp just the apparent meaning of it. Theory needs not be positively worded. Theory is very complicated so I probably haven't covered everything. Most important thing is to make a cohesive argument out of theory.

LARPing: I love plans, I ran them all the time. CPs are cool too, just make sure it competes. I am very receptive to the perm, but make the perm in-depth instead of a perm dump. DAs are staple. Pretty much any policy style arg is good, but have a framework to back it. Ks are ok, I read them. I would be careful with running a K though as my knowledge of kritikal literature is superficial at best. This just means that if you want to read a K make sure you can explain the entirety of it in the debate. One thing is that if I don't think you are making a coherent argument in favor of the K I won't just straight up vote for it for the sake of it being a K. Impact calc is good, weigh as much as possible.

Skep and presumption: I do not like debaters who try to reduce the debate to skep or presumption since it destroys substantial debate. I am willing to vote on a skep position if it is read as a position, though I am reluctant to do so. I will not, however, vote for presumption since I feel there is always offense elsewhere. I think that args that often justify presumption(like time skew) should be used in different ways.

Micropolitical Positions: If you are reading a micropol position I am probably one of the few to be willing to vote for it. I think most are pretty constructive but I will hold you to a high standard. I want you to prove that the round is uniquely necessary for the position. You will have a huge burden to win your role of the ballot. I definitely prefer straight up debate over micropol.

Other: I have a low threshold for extensions meaning that you can just extend the claim and a short warrant for conceded evidence. If it is a voting issue then obviously explain the impact of the ev. I just want you to get to where the clash is. Flashing is good and I won't make you take prep time to flash, but don't try to cheat this way. I will call for ev if it is a round deciding issue. I don't care if you sit or stand. I don't care what you wear.

Speaker Points: I give speaker points based on how I think you compare to the rest of the pool. 30 means I think you can win the tournament, i wont go lower than a 25 unless you do something really bad. To receive lower means you have made the round uncomfortable or insulted someone, it would take something very bad to do this.

If there is anything else, just ask. The most important thing is to enjoy debate and have fun.