Farrell,+Ryan

__Experience__ 4 years collegiate debate for Purdue University competing in NPDA, NFA-LD and Worlds/BP

__The Short Version__ I am a tabula rasa judge with three exceptions.

1. I enforce the rules.

2. Speaker points are my decision and are evaluated in a non tabula rasa way. This means that I will vote for poor arguments that are insufficiently responded to, but this does not mean that I will reward you with speaker points if I have to do so.

3. Speed should not be used to exclude your opponent(s) from the debate. To this end, your opponent(s) can request you slow down in round by saying 'clear' or 'speed.' If you do not reasonably slow down, I will be //very// persuaded by a speed position.

I have no biases for arguments, this is your round to do as you like. However, because of this paradigm it is important that you clearly explain why you are winning the round. I don’t want to have to do work for you.

__The Long Version__ //Speed//: I am fine with speed and will inform you if you are going too fast or are not clear. When spreading I prefer that you slow down on tags, cites, plan texts or interpretation (i.e. anything where an exact wording may be key to my decision).

//Cross Ex:// I don’t flow cross ex, but I am paying attention. I may take notes on another page but it does not mean it is on the flow. You need to tell me what to do with this information in your next speeches. The exception to this is clarifications of plan text, tags and/or cites. If I don’t have it down from the first speech I will add it to my flow.

//Topicality:// I do not need proven or potential abuse to vote on T (unless in round arguments change this position). I think a good T debate can be fascinating. Given no standard to adjudicate T in round I default to competing interpretations..

//Procedurals:// While procedurals are typically not the most entertaining debate, they are sometimes necessary. Run them if you wish, but spurious procedurals will affect your speaker points.

//Evidence//: I will not call for evidence unless it becomes a point of contention in the round. Otherwise I will use the judgment of the debaters in the room to determine the veracity of evidence.

//Counterplans//: Any interpretation of the role of a CP is acceptable. Given no guidance, I see CP’s as a test of competition. CP’s can be topical, non-topical, plan inclusive, and should probably be mutually exclusive. A successful perm means the CP is no longer a voting issue and is not added advocacy for affirmative.

//Other arguments not addressed above//: K’s, DA’s, performance, narratives, cases or other arguments are all fine in front of me.

//Defaults:// Given no guidance from the debaters on how to evaluate the round I will first evaluate K's then procedurals and topicality before moving to the case, DA’s, counter contentions, and CP debate. Please give me criteria for judging and also weigh the arguments in the round.

//Note//: I tend to be a very expressive judge. I nod and shake my head so it should be clear if I understand your argument. If you are making a new argument in the rebuttals I will just put my pen down. It is probably helpful if you catch these cues.

Finally, this is your round. I provide the information above so you understand my RFD in rounds where there is insufficient weighing. All of these defaults (excluding the three exceptions above) can be changed by arguments in the round. I try to disclose if there is time after the round and I am more than willing to answer specific questions later in the tournament. Feel free to ask me any other questions before the round.