Spracklen,+Tanner

Let's see... I debated from 2002-2005 on the Nebraska circuit. During that time I ran all kinds of arguments. On a very general level, I think you should either run positions that you know a lot about or passionately believe in. Here are the basics of my judging philosophy:

__**Topicality**__

On the affirmative, I think your 1AC should at least approach the "essence" of the topic. If your plan/advocacy is blatantly untopical and the negative team effectively makes an issue of it, the burden will be on you to explain why I shouldn't vote on T. That said, on the negative, to make an issue of topicality, you need to articulate the violation and explain why their untopical plan is harmful to the education in the round.


 * __Disads__**

Specific link scenarios are key. I will consider generic scenarios, but I generally don't find them as persuasive.

__**Critiques**__

I'll refer back to what I said at the beginning: run positions that __you know a lot about__ or that __you passionately believe in__. Like disads, I need clear link story here too.

__**Framework**__

I don't like framework debates. I typically vote for the team that makes the best arguments. I don't think the "pre-fiat" versus "post-fiat" distinction is very relevant because I consider the affirmative team's presentation of their case to be an advocacy within the round.


 * __Contradictions__**

Contradictions tend to create terrible debates. By "contradictions" I'm thinking of disads or counterplans that link back to your critique. I **DO** **NOT** mean legitimate double-binds, such as a topicality argument that forces the affirmative into a critique or disad link. That's defending your ground under the resolution and good strategy.

Any other questions, ask before the round.