Davis,+Connor

I always got concerned about a judge's page when there was a whole lot written, because I always thought the ideal paradigm would be "Do whatever you want, I'll evaluate the flow." That being said, I realize a lot of you may want more specifics, so I'll write more below here.

I qualified to the TOC my senior year, and am studying math and may debate at Michigan this year. I ran a lot of Ks and phil/FWs my junior year, and util and theory my senior year, so I'm pretty much comfortable with anything you want to run. You may try to pref me based on how often you'll think I'll vote on a particular issue (like util v. deont, K v. theory), but given the fact I ran each arg so much, I doubt I'll hack for one side. Then again, I'm a first year out, and I bet everyone says that, so take that with a grain of salt.

Run janky args if you want. They're interesting and I really liked running less common args. Obviously, only if you do it well. Don't run something idiotic in front of me if you can't defend it. Maybe a good brightline is run an obscure arg you'd feel comfortable with your opponent knowing about before the round, and you going for in a rebuttal, NOT an arg that you're counting on them dropping.

Overall, my primary goal as a judge is to avoid intervening. I evaluate the round simply: 1. What framework determine what impacts are relevant? 2. Who has the most offense under that framework. If there's no offense under the winning framework, I'll probably default to the losing framework instead of presumption.

__**On Ks**__: I ran some Ks and one performance aff in my career, and as long as you tell me why it matters and how I evaluate the round, go ahead. I definitely won't intervene for or against them. Warning though, if you don't tell me how to weigh or compare offense under your ROB, and neg tries to generate offense under your ROB, I'll be more inclined to lean neg, ceterus peribus. I also default to seeing Ks and theory on the same layer.

__**On weighing:**__ Try to use overviews to break down the round and then weigh what standards/impacts are left. Like every other judge, I like weighing, and it seems that if you weigh you'll have an easier job winning. I don't know why I included this section in my paradigm, it's not like reading this 15 minutes before the round will make you go "oh damn, I guess I should actually compare and weigh arguments."

__**On theory**__: The following are all defaults that should just give you an idea of how I debated like, these are not ideas I will project into the round. Obviously I default no RVI, but personally I found them pretty compelling. As a debater, I thought in-round, actual abuse was more compelling than potential or norm setting. I thought there were middle grounds between drop the arg and drop the debater, such as drop the framework. And, of course, as a debater, I found myself occasionally running frivolous-ish theory in the name of strategy.

Final thoughts:
 * I vote on arguments. This consists of warrants and impacts. I'll probably ignore blips that are spewed without some attempt at a warrant. Past that, you do you.
 * Don't be a dick.
 * Try not to steal too much prep, I don't particularly care what you guys do, but rounds taking over an hour because of "Do you want this all on one doc" is really not necessary and just slows down the tourney.
 * Slow down on tags, analytics, texts, or interps. Pretty much anything you NEED me to get down word for word, slow down. Now that I'm judging, I finally realized why every judge says this. Also, I thought this wouldn't have to be said, but please pause between transitions between flows so I can flow your arguments.
 * Don't do sketchy things with your evidence.
 * I have a low threshold for extensions, especially in the 1AR. But I definitely need to hear some articulation of an impact.
 * If I don't look like I'm paying attention in CX, make sure you get my attention before you get your damning concession.
 * I recognize speaks are arbitrary, but I'll usually be generous. I care about strategy, keeping me interested (via interesting cases, humor, weighing etc), good big picture analysis, and tech/efficiency.

If you have any more questions about how I'll evaluate a specific argument, ask me before the round or shoot me an email at connordavis17 [at] gmail.com.