Thakur,+Madhukar

2.5 years of judging slow policy debate – never judged fast DO NOT SPREAD. If I cannot understand you, I will not vote for you. Avoid jargon – link, uniqueness, etc – I will not understand what you are saying. No Ks. If you have to run theory or framework, do so with no jargon in a slow and clear fashion.

I prefer the stock issues paradigm: Topicality, Harms, Inherency, Solvency, Disadvantage.

Topicality: I am willing to vote on topicality as long as the negative can provide good evidence or reasoning as to why the affirmative falls outside of the resolution. Do not use jargon. Harms: The affirmative must prove to me that a significant problem exists in the current system. Inherency: Is there action being taken to fix the harms now? Solvency: Has the affirmative sufficiently proven to me that they can solve the harms they identify? Disadvantages: Do not use jargon (Uniqueness, link, etc). I am willing to evaluate disadvantages as long as they are backed by good evidence and sound argumentation. If the negative can prove to me that benefits of the plan are not worth the costs, I will vote on their disadvantage. Counterplan: Logical, evidence-backed counterplans that will be better at solving the problems of the current system than the affirmative are fine. Actor counterplans, like “China do the plan,” will not really persuade me.