Stupek,+Johnnie


 * Cliffs Notes:**
 * I'm a first year debater at the University of Georgia. I debated for 3 years in high school at Mount Vernon Presbyterian School.
 * I've only judged a handful of rounds on the high school topic, so I know some things about surveillance, but I'm not super deep in the lit.
 * Research matters. This is typically reflected in round by specific strategies and topic knowledge demonstrated in c/x and rebuttals.
 * Impact calculus is important.
 * An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an implication. I won't vote on something that falls short of this threshold.
 * I'm ready and willing to vote on theory. I'll reward debaters that go beyond their blocks and do good line-by-line and comparative argumentation on theory positions.
 * I'll default to offense/defense unless provided with an alternative way of evaluating the debate.
 * Evidence quality is important and debaters should make things like author qualifications a bigger deal in round.
 * Clarity > Speed
 * Cross-ex is important and I'll reward debaters who use cross-ex as part of their broader strategic vision.
 * Good spin often trumps good ev
 * People who have most influenced how I think about and judge debates: Hays Watson, Logan Gramzinski, Zach Strother

**Longer Version:**

The more work the debaters do to resolve the critical questions of the debate, the easier my job as a judge is. Impact calculus is part of this, but it also includes the interactions of other arguments. Does uniqueness determine the direction of the link? How does the framework debate implicate the way I view the alternative? Answering these questions give me a frame for my decision that can often work towards your benefit. The best way to limit out my subjectivity from the decision is to do this type of meta-framing of the debate.

I wish debaters would utilize more analytic arguments. Many advantages and disadvantages can have their risk severely reduced by smart analytic arguments at the internal link level.

Topicality -

I love good topicality debates. The more specific the impact analysis is the better. Just like going for a disad, the neg needs to construct a story; telling me how their internal link chain connects together and why I should care about their terminal impact. The same goes for the aff in these debates: The more I know why affirmative innovation and flexibility is important, the better off you'll be.

I'm not persuaded by most specification arguments as outright reasons to reject the team. They can be a useful tool for establishing counterplan competition.

Kritiks -

My comfort zone here is with kritiks about international relations. I've got a decent grasp on the literature surrounding critical security studies, critiques of capitalism, and feminist critiques of IR. I am by no means a scholar in critical race or postmodern theory. That isn't to say I won't vote on those args, I just might need a little bit more macro explanation. I think affirmative teams should do more to attack alternatives both at a substance and theoretical level. I think that it's important for the 2AR to be able to define the solvency deficits to the alternative and weigh that against the case. I think that negative debaters should spend more time talking about the case in the context of the kritik. A good, warranted link and turns the case debates are the best way for negative teams to get my ballot. I also think that it is important for negative teams to explore the internal link of their Kritik. How do the links to the aff uniquely lead to the impacts?


 * 1) NewDebate -

I'll judge framework debates as close to the flow as possible. I can be persuaded by the argument that notions of competition should be altered when the aff doesn't read a plan-text.

Counterplans -

My initial impression of whether your counterplan is legitimate will be whether or not you have a specific solvency advocate. There's nothing better than a well-researched mechanism counterplan and there's nothing worse than a hyper-generic process counterplan that you recycle for every negative debate on the topic. I generally think that conditionality is okay up to 2 conditional options. PICs are probably good. Consult/Conditioning counterplans are probably bad.


 * Paperless: **

I prefer debater's using e-mail chains whenever possible because I find it much faster than flashing. If you are flashing, prep time ends when the flash drive leaves your computer.