Grant,+Jim

__History__ I debated policy for four years at Marcus High School in Dallas and 2 years at the University of Mary Washington.

My job as a judge isn't to tell you what arguments to run but to evaluate the arguments as they are presented. This isn't meant to tell you that there are certain arguments you either can or cannot run. You can run any argument you choose and I will evaluate it as fairly as possible.

__Speed__ Speed is fine, you can go as fast as you want within reason. Clarity does matter and if you're being unclear I will shout "Clear" or "Louder" if you get too quiet.

__Topicality__ Topicality is important and is on face a voting issue unless otherwise contested. It's important to win each part of the argument. The negative has to prove first and foremost that the Affirmative violates their interpretation. Often teams skip this part of the debate in favor of arguing about the standards but this is a mistake. The Negative team needs to get beyond the basic level of standards presented in the 1NC; presenting case and argument lists that let me know what sort of world they envision of the topic.

A counter interpretation is a must for the Affirmative. I don't usually buy into the stream of "Topicality isn't a voter" arguments that 2ACs often throw at the bottom of the flow in the 2AC(lit checks, reasonability, etc.) These arguments need to be warranted coming out in the 2AC not just single line blips at the bottom of the flow.

__Kritiks__ It is imperative that the negative team be able to clearly articulate what their alternative is and how it functions either in the round or outside of it. Negative teams often focus too much on the link and impact and fail to ever articulate their own alternative. Also, make sure that kritik is applied to the specific affirmative that you're reading it against.

You can read any kritikal argument that you choose really.

__Disads__ They're fine any of them, even politics. Make sure that you make comparative statements about impacts not just talking about yours in a vaccuum.

__CP__ They're fine. If you choose to argue theory make sure that it doesn't turn into a block war. You have to apply specific arguments from your initial block to the other side's answers. Simply getting up and rereading your block won't get me to vote on it.

__New 2NC Args__ I have to address this as I have encountered this more than one time in the past. New links, new impacts are all fine. Extensions are fine. Those are not new arguments. Sandbagging by going card by card over the 1AC and reading new arguments and indicts, is not ok. If you feel that you're justified in running a new 2NC CP be ready to defend it. All arguments are really fine, just make sure that they're explained properly and impacted.