Hoffa,+Grace

I debated for Apple Valley High School for 4 years. I debated both on the local and national circuit. I went to the TOC my senior year. This Judge Philosophy is heavily influenced/stolen from my coach- Chris Theis. If something in this is unclear, please ask me to clarify before the round.

Relevant Arguments
I really would rather not vote on defense. In most rounds I find that the concept of defense being decisive just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. That means that I will not vote on presumption or permissibility arguments. It is probably a waste of your time to read presumption arguments in front of me at all. I always default to thinking that there is a risk of offense.

I would also like each debater to have a clear and specific advocacy. Each side needs to defend a world in order to be able to generate uniqueness for offensive arguments. Thus, both debaters need to be able to articulate a world they are defending in a more coherent way than "not x.” I am not super inclined to vote on truth testing arguments. If you choose to run these in front of me, just make sure it is justified and clearly articulated.

Frameworks
I will be completely honest- I preferred to run Util my entire career so it is probably the debate I am best able to evaluate. That being said, I enjoy debates that aren’t util. Debate is your game, run whatever framework you want to run, just please be clear about the implications of your framework. But honestly, if you wish to have a framework heavy debate- I am probably not the judge for you.

Theory
I would rather not judge a theory debate. I hated theory when I was a debater, and I only tolerate it marginally more as a judge. That being said, if you feel the need to run theory- I just ask that you run it well. THE ONLY THING I HATE MORE THAN A THEORY DEBATE IS A CONFUSING MESS OF A THEORY DEBATE.

Ks
I do not have much experience with K Lit, so if you want to run a K in front of me, default to over explaining the argument. I need a Role of the Ballot so I know how to evaluate arguments on the flow, and if you concede to a ROTB- explain how your arguments still link/are important under this ROTB. I do not want to do this work for you.

Computers
I am totally fine with you debating on your computer. Sit or stand, I don’t really care. However, I am not super sympathetic to computer malfunctions, especially if it happens before one of your rebuttals. I think you should probably have paper copies of your important stuff, just in case. However, if you are having computer problems, I will give you 5 minutes of computer time that will not impact your prep time. If you can not fix your computer in that five minutes, then it will either bleed into your prep time or you will just need to figure out how to debate without your computer.

Speaks- Completely Stolen From Chris Theis
I assign speaks based on a combination of stagey and how much I enjoyed or was annoyed by the round. Debates that I enjoy involve debate about the topic, debaters who I can understand, debaters who are smart and engaging, debaters who are pleasant to each other.

30: Amazing. I think you are debating your positions better than anyone else at the tournament could. You could not only win this tournament but would have a chance to win any tournament in which you debated at the level you did in this round. 29: Fantastic. Very few people could do a better job at debating your position. You have a good shot at making it to late outrounds. 28: Good. You did what you had to do and did not have very many large mistakes. You should clear. 27: All right. You did an adequate job. You will be close to clearing but it could go either way. 26: Below Average. You should not clear. 25: Bad: You need major improvements in pretty much every aspect of debate. Your record should be below .500. <25: Offensive or offensively bad.

Arguments that I will not vote for
A strategy that attempts to wash the debate on purpose in order to trigger permissibility/presumption.

A contingent framework/advocacy that is "triggered" in a later speech.

Arguments/Practices I will immediately drop you for
Any argument that concludes that every action is permissible

Any argument that creates a hostile environment for either myself, the other debater, or anyone who is watching the debate.

Any argument that explicitly argues that something that we all agree is awful (genocide, rape, etc) is actually a good thing. This could either be an advocacy or a framework THAT THE DEBATER AGREES says horrible things are ok. If the other debater wins an argument that your framework justifies something horrible, but it is contested, then it may count as a reason to not accept your framework, but I will not drop you for it.

Things that make me angry/annoyed
Stealing time.

Purposefully formatting your case in a way that makes it hard for your opponent to read.

Mislabeling/minnumbering arguments as a strategy.

Acting as if your spikes are not actually spikes. Putting spikes between your tag lines and author names (Way to go K Krotz) Any other dirty trick along the same lines. Follow the spirit of these rules and you should be fine. Extending whole contentions at a time. I know that time is always an issue, but I will actively avoid voting for a contention if you just extend it as "extend my whole contention 3. Next..." Not saying the word extend. This isn't PF, I need to know you are extending an argument and not just referencing it. This sounds silly, but I will be very sad if you don't say the simple word extend. So please, just do it.