Marshall,+Paul

My background/General Info: I've debated for 3 years for both Benton High School in Benton, LA and for Coronado High School in Henderson, NV. I am a Junior at Coronado High School currently. I have ran a variety of arguments that have helped me establish a decent idea of what I enjoy and don't enjoy as debater, and what I believe to be true and not true. I've debated nationally a few times in Dallas, Las Vegas, and Utah. This will be my first time judging ( as of golden desert.). I have seen K debating in the form of a one off whiteness T rapped, to a performance debate using gore images and a boombox to convey their message.That being said don't be afraid to try something different in front of me, if you do it well enough you may pick up a win. I want you to tell me how to vote and why, that way I as the judge have to do as little intervention as possible because I believe as long as your debating properly, judge bias should never happen, but if you dont my biases are listed below. In the 2NR and 2AR I would like to see Impact calc of some sort that is comparative and a __#|overview__ on why your winning. Your extensions should have a __warrant__ to them, explain what __your__ extending to me. Tag team cross x is fine - dont dominate your partner.

Default Views/Biases:

I will vote on ANYTHING if you debate it well, whether I like it or not.

I like case debates. Seriously have one.

I dont flow cross x, but if you extend something from it I will write it down.

I find well ran K arguments and aff's interesting, but if you run it horribly or cant explain it to me then you wont win on it. I know a decent amount of kritikal authors and arguments but if you dont explain it at all and just shout cards at me I probably wont pick you up. Explain everything.

The affirmative gets to defend a topical policy option and all advantages; the neg wins if the plan is proven undesirable (Kritikally or otherwise) or offers a better counter-plan/advocacy/proposal. I find theory in most cases a reason to reject the argument, unless told otherwise.

I naturally lean more towards probability than magnitude or time frame unless given a reason. Dont tell me you weren't prepared for a camp aff with __#|your__ topicality argument, instead use fairness in the bigger scheme of debate (if allowing that aff explodes the topic, or if the neg definition kills the topic, ect) I find it more persuasive.

If you dont spend all 5 mins in the 2NR on theory or topicality then the "abuse" must have not been that bad for me to vote down the other team.

I dont find multiple worlds convincing if the 2NR only has one world coming out of their speech.

If you have any more questions ask me in round before we start.