Rowston,+Barrett

I know most people only read a paradigm to figure out basic questions like how a judge feels about speed or theory, so in order to prevent you from sifting through a book i will keep this short and simple.The round is yours to do whatever you want with, so debate it how YOU want.In general I believe every argument must have a warrant, and its the job of the debaters to explain and impact those warrants to matter. I also try to intervene as little as possible, so if you as a debater don't explain the warrants of your arguments I'm not obligated to vote it. Its also a debaters job to explain the interaction between arguments so if debaters aren't clashing and weighing arguments at the end of the round I'm going to have to interpret those arguments for you and you may not like the decision I make. So in order to secure my ballot do as much work for me as possible in round so voting for you is easy. There are three things that upset me and could cost me my ballot. First, I will not throw out arguments because "judge, we do not even know what this means." I probably do. Secondly, if you are making unwarranted critical arguments, miss-cutting an author, or straight up lying about an argument, you will probably not get away with it. Finally, if you cannot explain the position succinctly in CX, your opponent can not answer it, and I will probably penalize you severely.

Speaker points:speaker points are based on a combination of strategy and in round behavior i.e if your rude in cx you will receive lower speaker points. What you wear or whether you sit or stand doesn't affect my decision and thus is irrelevant to me.However, I do requirethat you be polite to your opponent, and respectful to all other individuals in the room (so long as they are respecting you).Speed is fine as long as you are clear, I will yell clear or louder once or twice, if you don't clear up I'll just stop flowing until you do.

Specific positions

K's: I consider them to be very interesting and beneficial to understanding higher level argumentation. One might go so far as to say that they are my favorite type of position. This does not mean you win for running a K, it means that if you do so in a way that does not make sense, or misuse arguments you stole from policy backfiles hoping that your opponent and judge will not notice/be confused and you will win, you are wrong. As I said, all arguments must be warranted. It does mean, however, that I will not ignore any K so long as it is warranted. If you want to tell me that your opponents sentence structure creates an oppressive aesthetic, or that the action of the AC causes us to forget the nature of death experiences I am fine with that. That being said, please be sure that you delineate between and explain the function of pre-fiat and post-fiat impacts. I frequently fine that all of this is more clear if you add framework before or after the K, but that is by no means necessary. There are three main things you should draw from this. First, I will not throw out arguments because "judge, we do not even know what this means." I probably do. Secondly, if you are making unwarranted critical arguments, miss-cutting an author, or straight up lying about an argument, you will probably not get away with it. Finally, if you cannot explain the position succinctly in CX, your opponent can not answer it, and I will probably penalize you severely.

Policy: I'm ok with plans, Disads, CP's or whatever other policy arguments you want to run. Ask me in round for more specific questions.

Theory:I default to competing interps. My default interpretation of reasonability is that in-round abuse must be demonstrated. Feel free to contest either. RVIS are find with me as long as you justify it. I do believe that competing interpretations can justify an RVI as long as the argument is made, and done properly. I give lenience in answering on-case/paragraph theory or theory that is extemped without even a skeletal outline.I will be suspicious of substantive arguments (skepticism) that are cross-applied to answer theory--I think that just raises the question of whether that argument was fair to begin with, and I'm inclined to side with the theory issue. I have a very high threshold for 2NR theory and will require only a minimal response for the 2AR. I also WONT vote off of 2AR RVIS.

I WONT vote on Skept justifies the holocaust. I don't believe that arguments can be morally repugnant Weighing=better speaks Have fun, feel free to ask me any questions in round.