Flick,+Justin

**Judges I looked up to:** Jared Anderson, Chad Meadows, Scott Laczko, Sue Peterson, Matthew Doggett, Josh Harzman
I will judge on the flow. But I expect debaters to extend dropped arguments in their last speech if I am to evaluate them. I want you to tell me what to weigh on the flow. If you don’t I vote on comparative risk, meaning if I don’t get a compelling argument why you solving extinction in 40 years outweighs the risk of a relations DA that leads to war, I default to the greater risk of an impact happening

**Specific Issues:**

 * Speed ** : I am cool with it. I use speed and I think it is an important part of debate. Be clear. I will never call speed, but will call clear. Debaters, know the difference. If an opposing debater calls speed, at least make an attempt to include them. I am NOT receptive to speed procedurals. I am receptive to Speed is ableist/occularcentric kritiks. Basically, just be inclusive.

====**Kritiks:** I love K’s. Please, please, please cut them yourself and read the literature. I don’t want to hear your backfile Heidegger K off of Open Evidence. Make it relevant to the topic and link to the plan. If it’s an identity K, you got to tell me why the topic or affirmative issue areas particularly oppress that identity. Even if its just a blip like “Plan uses the state to do x and doing x props up capitalism”. I WILL NOT vote on links of omission. Alt has to at least solve the impacts of case or tell me why the impacts of case don’t matter. Aff, engage in the Kritik. Defend your methodology. I don’t want to hear “K’s are cheating”. That’s a bad argument. If you don’t read framework, tell me why K outweighs case. I need an Alt. I need to know how the alt solves.====

====**Topicality**: Me likey T. I don’t like the dichotomy of T vs all other positions. If the the neg runs T + Cap K, and the Aff impact turns T as being capitalist, that’s fair game for the aff to tell me to reject one of the positions due to the turn. Give me reasons why education and fairness matter. They aren’t just magic words that win you the debate. I vote on the flow, but if there is good clash I default more to reasonability. Don’t run a terrible DA then extend the no-link as proven abuse. That is a recipe for low speaks in front of me. I’m fine with potential abuse.====

====**Procedurals/Assorted Theory:** I vote on the flow. With that caveat, there are some arguments I dislike. I dislike full cites procedurals. I have little desire to vote for it. I dislike voting on spec arguments. Run specs to get links to your positions. I think stock issues work best as a procedural in NFA-LD debate. I will vote on solvency/inherency procedurals. You aren’t clever running Time Cube. It’s not funny or edgy.====

====**Counterplans:** I love a good counterplan and I don’t think anything is off-limits. So feel free to run a conditional consult PIC in front me. I don’t think PIC’s or Condo is bad, but I will vote that they are if you convince me via well-warranted analysis. I need you to articulate some form of competitiveness, but it’s the aff’s burden to challenge it. I think CP’s can be competitive just through net benefits; even if that net benefit is simply that it solves better.====

====**Perms:** This is where I may deviate from others in the community. I don’t automatically assume a perm is a test of competition. If you say something like the perm solves better and your whole AR is vote on the perm because it solves best and the neg runs theory on that, I am willing to listen. To flesh this out more, 9/10 times the perm is a hypothetical test of competition and test of alt/CP solvency. It all depends on how it is framed and I except debaters to be diligent in understanding the way the perm is framed before they automatically pull out “perms bad” theory. Explain why the perm proves it’s not competitive. I just find that sometimes a CP solves better, and thus that is how it’s competitive. In rounds like that, it’s smart for aff’s to read why the perm solves better to capture both aff and neg fiat. I’m also willing to listen to perm theory. I tend to think severance/delay perms are abusive, but again debate it in front of me and I will listen and vote on the flow.====

====**DA’s:** I love a good disad debate. I prefer specific links, but if you have a good card that says why any action causes it and you support it with good analysis, I’m down. I have no problem voting on the risk of the DA. But tell me why the disad outweighs. I think the best disad’s have something that indicates the impacts are a root cause or take out the solvency of the aff; I just think it gives you more outs on the DA====

====**Aff’s:** Affirm the resolution. I give you some leeway in the 2AR because you really are at a structural time disadvantage in NFA-LD. I like to see good aff structure. You have infinite prep time to prepare a well thought out structured aff, and your 1AC holds the most weight for me in terms of aff speakerpoints====

====**Performance:** I think if you are going to run these sorts of position I am going to hold you to a high burden to prove why I shouldn’t vote on framework or T. I prefer neg teams argue the methodology of the performance, rather than reading bad impact turns that make you look like a jerk. As I said, I will vote on the flow, and since a lot of debaters don’t know how to answer performance well, it can be effective, but I would err heavily toward voting on framework or a T. Not that I don’t think your performance has no merit or I’m a racist/sexist/homophobe/transphobe, I just think you have a lot to justify on why I should vote for your performance. But I WILL listen, and won’t automatically vote against you. You can win with performance in front of me, but do it well====

====**NFA-LD (or whatever format I am judging) Rules:** I don’t like voting on rules in debate. That being said, I will. But I think there are so many ways to bend the rules that teams should have answers to most rules issues. Basically, it’s like cool, I get that NFA-LD rules say Solvency/Inherency/Topicality, but what’s the impact other than breaking rules? I don’t think the rules themselves are an impact, so figure out how they relate to fairness, education, or the other impacts.====