David,+Michelle

-Be Nice. Debate is a fun activity that we should all enjoy. Don’t be rude or overly aggressive. -Clarity first - it’s about the number of arguments I can flow and not how many you can make. -Make sure your framing your arguments- tell me how to evaluate certain arguments and how those arguments affect my decision. -Evidence vs. Argumentation- I try to call for as few cards as possible [unless highly contested by both teams] and think that it is generally up to the debaters to provide clear analysis and explanation to why I should prefer their specific cards. -Don’t cheat. Don’t steal prep time. Make sure to actually mark cards where you stop reading them; don’t just say “mark the card.” -If it’s evident that you’re not flowing, speaker points will be deducted.
 * General Comments:**

**Topicality** : -Keep it clean & don’t be messy on the flows. -Explain your standards and really impact them. -As a default, I probably find reasonability more persuasive as it makes sense that if the aff meets at least a good interpretation of the topic that they shouldn’t have to be the best for me to vote aff.

**Counterplans:** -These are my favorite kinds of debate and I will reward case specific CP strategies. -Competition: Counterplans that have a functional difference from the plan are competitive. CPs that are wholly plan inclusive and that do not have a functional difference from the mandate of the plan are probably not competitive, but I can be persuaded otherwise. Excellent solvency advocates go a long way though.

**Theory:** -Conditionality- more than 3 is probably pushing the limit -I have a high threshold for rejecting the team on most other theory violations as the most logical impact always seems to be to reject the argument. I can, however, still be persuaded the other way. -Blippy 2AC theory is a problem- fix it. Stop using so many buzzwords. Seriously.

**Disads:** -Impact calculus. Impact calculus. Impact calculus. Please do it. Please. Tell me how to evaluate the disad and what I should do with your impacts. -While I can easily be persuaded the other way, I generally believe that the link probably controls the direction of uniqueness and that low risk of a disad can mean no risk of a disad.

**Kritiks:** -I’m probably not the right judge for you. -Too many people throw around buzzwords and kritik jargon. Don’t do it. Just explain to me simply what your arguments are. -If you can’t defend your kritik in cross-ex or in your speeches you probably shouldn’t be reading it. -Affs- Stop dropping neg K tricks and attack the alt more.

**Performance Teams:** -Still probably not the right judge for you. I believe that debate should focus around a central stasis point from which to generate fair competition. -I am easily persuaded by good framework or topicality violations, but can be persuaded by performance teams if not well articulated or impacted.

**Paperless Debating:** -Prep time ends when the flash drive leaves the computer. It does not end when you have finished saving it to the flash drive.