Adams,+Bryce

Edited 9.14.09, mostly stolen from Katie Dessi

The "If You Don't Want To Read a Novel" Version: //**I'm pretty straightforward. I want debaters to tell me HOW to adjudicate a round, and then tell me WHY, based on the arguments they are winning and the method of adjudication, they SHOULD win the round. The HOW part would be something like a standard, or burdens. The WHY part would include the warrants and impacts/link story for the arguments being extended.**// I am not at all particular about HOW you go about accomplishing those two tasks, but if you are not doing that, don't expect a W.

The "This Should Answer Any Question You Can Think Of" Version:
 * Preferences, attitudes, and assumptions...**


 * When I sign my ballot:** Unless I'm in round told otherwise, I vote by checking to see if I can affirm. This is because I fundamentally believe that the resolution is a proposition of truth, and I fundamentally believe that if a truth claim is made, the burden falls on the person proving it true. (If I am told NOT to approach my decision making in this manner, in round, then I won't. I'm totally open to other articulated paradigms.)


 * Default Neg:** Given my default assumption about the truth burden, I will do this in an otherwise messy and impossible to adjudicate w/o intervening round. Doesn't happen often, but it does happen. (If there are reasons I should reverse this assumption on the flow/in the round, I'll listen to those. Again, this is just my default, it's not set in stone.)


 * Speed:** I haven't judged in about 8 months so I'm not as fast as I once was. If it's too fast or unclear, I'll stop flowing, so watch for that non-verbal. If I don't flow it, I can't vote on it, so it's in your best interest to not lose me.


 * Bad Theory:** I have never heard a good theory argument. Grounds arguments are fine and encouraged (topicality, conditionality), but I'll just tell you straight up that I won't vote on "education" or "fairness."

1. Tell me the link story. I expect your links to be explicitly stated and numbered, and I expect them to include specific references to your opponents arguments. 2. Articulate a bright line, or convince me that while you can't articulate a bright line, you know that your opponent has crossed some threshold. (This is particularly important if you want to run "speed bad", "time skew", or any of your "the way my opponent is debating is bad" type arguments. And, btw, the primary reason I hate those types of arguments is because style is very subjective. Fast to you could be slow to me. Time skew to you, could be clever strategy to me.) If you are arguing against something like "conditional" v. "categorical", "topical" v. "not" or any of the "the specific arguments my opponent is making are bad" type arguments, you're going to need to articulate an alternative interpretation to demonstrate the theory violation. (This step should come before the link story for the sake of continuity.) 3. Impacts! What are the implications of allowing your opponent to debate the way they are debating, or of allowing your opponent to argue what they are arguing? Number these. 4. Decision Calculus. Tell me how I should evaluate the theory in the round, and WHY I should evaluate it that way.
 * Theory 2.0:** If you choose to run a theory argument you MUST do all of the following, and if you do, then I will treat your theory argument as if it were any other argument on the flow:
 * Anything short of this, and you run the risk of me granting your opponent serious lee-way when answering the theory, because short of those steps, theory starts to sound like throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks/running it for the sake of running it. But if you are willing to do the work and make it an actual argument, I'm willing to evaluate the argument accordingly.*** (BTW: This is how I feel about arguments in general. If you're not telling my why what you're saying matters or is true, I probably don't care about it.)


 * Overviews, underviews, off case, etc:** I don't care if you run them, an argument is an argument. Make sure that if the argument is ends based, it does link back to a standard that has been articulated and justified as a standard, or has some internal weighing calculus. If you want an off-case argument cross-applied to something specific MAKE THE CROSS APPLICATION AT THE TIME YOU READ THE CARD NOT IN A LATER SPEECH!!! New cross-applications are new arguments are not going to be evaluated by me unless your opponent treats the cross application as legitimate.


 * Calling for evidence:** I don't. If I'm on a panel and the person sitting next to me calls for something, I might look at it, but as far as I'm concerned for me to look at evidence is tantamount to giving a debater extra speech time. If something is so important you want to make sure I didn't miss it, you better reread it, or check to see if I got it already. (You'll be able to tell.) The lone exception is if there is a back and forth argument about specific rhetoric in the card or the text from which the card was cut. In that instance, I'll look even if the debaters don't ask me to look simply to ensure I myself heard correctly.


 * Paneled Rounds in general:** Things that either annoy me, or I have a low threshold for in pre-elim rounds, when on a panel, I'm a little more forgiving about. This doesn't mean my paradigm changes, but I understand the strategy in "going for the other two". So if you make a sub-par theory argument, I'm not going to drop you for it or be mad about it, but if there's any sort of answer on it, I won't vote for it either. Or, if you go for say a theory argument for 7 min, even if only the first 2 min were necessary to get what I'd need to vote off of, I'm not going to hold it against you for you covering all your bases. So, same paradigm, same method of adjudication, but I don't hold strategy against you.

I don't care if you ask questions during prep unless the tournament has strictly prohibited it. Stand when you give a speech. Voters can be as you go or at the end of the speech. Feel free to time yourself. (I'll have a timer running, I'm not going to give signals. If you are cool with me not flowing you though, then I suppose I don't mind giving signals.)
 * Random stuff:**

Debated at RL Turner from 2000-2004. TOC 2003-2004. Judged off and on in college. Spent the last year working as a lobbyist in Texas education policy so I'm familiar with all the resolution's issues and think it should make for a good debate. Feel free to ask any questions before or after the round.
 * General:**