Wolf,+Micky

Updated 1/8/16:

Times have changed. As you can read below, I used to think that I should adapt to your style of debate. But having been mostly away from debate for 2 years, I now am much more inclined to tell you I think there are important skills you get from debate that, as a judge, I would like you to benefit from. I don't think there is a substantial benefit to superfluous theory arguments only used to win the round. You will learn more from debating the topic. Theory __**should** **only**__ be used as a check on abuse.

While I ran many exstinction scenarios as a debater, I will be more inclined to reward you with better speaks if I think your arguments are most beneficial to real world education. Again, __**ask me any questions you would like.**__

Updated 1/9/15:

__**Short Version:**__
I do not believe you should have to substantially change your style/position for the judge. I debated on the national circuit and will vote for most anything you can articulate offense from. That said, please ask me questions, especially if you are running arguments that can be considered "sketchy."

__**Long Version:**__
Run what you would like, but here is some more information about me and my preferences for debate.

__**Me:**__ I graduated from Winston Churchill High School (San Antonio, TX) in 2014. I qualified for TFA State 4 times, finished in the top 25 at NFL Nationals my Junior year, and lost 2 bid rounds my Senior Year. I have only judged 2 or 3 tournaments since graduating.

__**My Job as a Judge:**__ I generally think my job as a judge is to determine who did the better debating. However, I also understand that a judge can hold a role as an educator and absolutely can affect what practices are seen in debate. I want to vote on offense linked backed to some type of standard for evaluating the round. Tell me how to do that.

__**Racist/Sexist/Offensive Arguments:**__ I do not want to see Racist/Sexist things run in round. I just don't think it is a good practice for you as the debater. That said, I would still vote for an offensive argument if your opponent just simply does not answer it. However, I will have a high threshold for voting on these types of arguments and won't be happy to do it.


 * __Speed/Clarity__:** I am fine with speed, but I have to understand what you are saying to vote on it. You do you and I will yell out "CLEAR" if you are too fast/unclear. I will only yell clear twice, then you are on your own. Going slow can also work, just be strategic.

__**Kritiks:**__ I have limited experience running K's. I have read some literature for classes, but not more of the complex literature. That said, I am somewhat familiar with a lot of the arguments. I want to see a K linked back into some sort of voting mechanism though. Whether that be a standard, a role of the ballot, or some other way that tells me how to vote is up to you.

__**Theory/RVI's:**__ I think theory should be run as a check on abuse. If you run it as simply a route to the ballot I will vote for it but will not be so happy about it. I don't have a strong preference on the RVI debate but I am more likely to grant an RVI if it is read against frivolous theory. You obviously still need to win a warrant as to why we need an RVI. I also am more sympathetic to Aff RVI's but again, these are just my personal biases. In round debate can be had on any of these topics.


 * __Apriori's/"Sketchy" Practices:__** I would rather not see people go for these arguments. I would be receptive to theory against them. But, if won, I will vote for them.

__**Policy Arguments:**__ I think these are fine in LD as long as you link them back to a standard. I ran these often. As far as plans go, just be ready to justify them if you are debated on it.

__**Flex Prep/Questions During** **Prep:**__ Don't like flex prep, but if both debaters agree to it before round its fine. I am fine with questions during prep and will assume it will be fine with both debaters unless otherwise specified.

__**Speaker** **Points:**__

I will use speaker points as both a gage of how well I think you will do at the tournament and as a tool to encourage practices I would want to see in debate.

Fluctuation in the ranges will be based on how well I think you will do within the specified-below larger grouping and on whether I think your style is good for debate. For example: If I think you will win the tournament, but you ran 6 frivolous theory shells I will probably give you a 29.5.

29.5-30: Late out rounds or will win the tournament

29-29.5: Will break at the tournament, may win an out round

28.5-29: Good chance of breaking, not sure that you will, probably will lose the first out round

27.5-28.5: Probably not breaking unless you get lucky with your draw

26-27.5: Not breaking

Lower than a 26: Offensive or some other egregious error.