Xiao,+Edward

I am a third year debater/junior at Johns Creek High School and this is my judge philosophy for the Woodward Academy Tournament of 2014. I have been a 2N mostly throughout that time, and I'm pretty much good with __everything.__ I may have some predispositions but do not let any of those predispositions change the way you debate in a particular round. You do you.
 * __Background:__**

__**Short Version:**__ I try to be as unbiased as possible for any argument but with that said, I think I have a bit more knowledge with policy arguments than critical ones, but you should always explain your arguments in a way I could get. Smart analytics will beat bad cards. Clarity over speed but hopefully you're both. Be a nice debater but not a passive one. Tech over truth; a dropped argument is a true one but an argument is a claim and a warrant. If a claim and a warrant is dropped in one speech, I will almost automatically think that claim and warrant is true, unless there are smart and strategic cross applications, etc. This means, however, that something like a 3-second ASPEC argument in the 2NC will be very hard to persuade me as a voting issue. Again, I can't emphasize this more than enough - you do you.

__**DA's:**__ Topic specific DA's are preferrable to politics DA's. A lot of the time, impact calc decides the debate for me between case vs. DA's. I try to be unbiased but again if there is a scenario in which one team drops a nuke war impact and another team drops an environment impact and no impact work is done, i'll have to intervene for that one. There is a possible zero percent risk of a DA.

__**CP's:**__ I like case-specific CP's and I also like advantage CP off of one advantage and then impact turning the other. Things like process, consult, etc. are winnable in front of me as the neg but I would really like a solvency advocate. A common thing on this topic is the sea turtles QPQ CP, in which the 1NC is composed of cards about why saving sea turtles are good and prevents extinction. These CP's that do not have a solvency advocate, I am very sympathetic to the aff's arguments if they were to go for something like no solvency advocates bad. As for regular CP theory like process, consult, etc., I'm kind of sympathetic to the aff for this but I really think its the aff's job to win these arguments in the first place.

__**K's:**__ I am good with the K as long as it's explained well or even in a coherent manner. I've gone for it a decent amount of times and I know a lot of the tricks put into these types of debates; that being said, if the aff drops a K trick, I will almost automatically vote the negative up if the negative chooses to extend the trick decently. However, I would advise not for negs to rely so much on those tricks because I would much rather prefer specific link work, pointing out flaws in aff evidence, etc.

__**Topicality:**__ I'm good with T but I think a lot of explanation is required. Give me a case-list, explain adequately what your interpretation is and why the aff violates, topical version of the aff, good impact calc on limits/ground, etc. I'm sympathetic to the 2NR on topicality. because I've lost to a lot of new 2AR extrapolation on those debates. Whatever the 1AR has is what the 2AR has, at least I'll try my best and judge the debate like that.

__**Conditionality:**__ 1 means you probably won't win that it's a voting issue in front of me unless you're really persuasive, 2 is ok for the neg and aff is ok going for condo, and 3+ I probably will lean aff in a lot of those conditionality debates. Conditional planks of CP's probably means each plank is conditional. Do not shout out buzzwords at lightning speed and expect me to vote on conditionality. I think this needs more time than regularly allotted.

__**Cross-examination:**__ Your speaker points will most likely increase some if you had a good cross-examination session of 3 minutes. This does not mean you devastate them in cross-ex or ask a question and don't even let them think and just move on and assume they couldn't answer the question. I think, for the most part, cross-examination is binding. Some aff solvency cards call for other things other than the 1AC plan, but those other things are obviously not what the 1AC does. if in cross-ex the 1A says the plan does X but X is not in the solvency evidence, I will regularly assume that's one function of what the plan could do. I really don't like shiftiness when it comes to cross-ex when you say one thing in cross-ex but it's different in the speech, and I will try to evaluate that shiftiness if it comes to play in the end.

__**Performance/K-affs/Rez Bad Affs:**__ I'm normally good with this. Against Framework, you'll need to win your offense matters more than decision making, fairness, etc.

__**Flashing/Prepping/Clipping/Paperless:**__ I won't count prep for flashing unless it just gets ridiculous. I hate stealing prep; don't do it and your speaker points might go down or if down excessively, an auto-lose. Also, for clipping, if i catch you clipping, I'll assign an automatic 0 speaker points for whoever was clipping and also auto-lose that team. I understand that people have computer problems sometimes and in the event that you're prepping for a speech and your laptop dies/shuts down/has a seizure/etc, I think the fairest way I could come up with or have seen other people do is that you get half the amount of time you have already used prepping for that speech and you can only use your computer and cannot write on your flows when the computer starts back up and you're ready to do your speech again.