Bigby,+Daron


 * Time Debating:** 4 years in High School on the local Las Vegas circuit and some on the national circuit. 3 years of LD and 1 year of Varsity Policy.
 * School Debated for:** Canyon Springs High School
 * Number of Years Judging:** 2

I have spent some time judging all kinds of debate, but my expertise resides in LD and CX. In general, I am judge that will pull the trigger on just about anything as long as it's believable. If you can't convince me, then I won't vote for the argument. Here are the basics I expect from every round:

1. I demand three voters from both the AFF and NEG. If you don't give me any then I will be forced to utilize judge intervention which I hate to do. Don't push me there. 2. I am big on education. Debate is not a game of chess. It is a discussion of issues relevant to our society. Treat it as such. 3. Respect of one another is very important to me. Though it won't cause me to drop you, blatant disrespect will result in lower speaks. 4. If you are debating from a laptop, you must make your cards easily available if they ask for them.

To make things clear with speed, my ear isn't as well trained for it as other judges are. Though I will accept speed in the round, there is such a thing as too fast for me. I prefer clarity over speed. During the round, slow down on the tags and cites. When reading the card, speed as fast as you please. However, if you want me to get something down that is very important, its safer to slow down on it. If you get too fast or unclear, I will yell SLOW once. If you do it again, I will say it again. If you do it a third time, I will flamboyantly drop my pen signaling that I have stopped flowing. If the argument doesn't get on my flow, it doesn't exist. So meet me halfway with speed, and we will be fine.

I do evidence call at the end of the round. Depending on what voters you decide to give me, prepare all the cards that go along with those voters. At the end of the round I will ask for those cards and I will read them for validity. I have dropped a team that debated better than the other all because their card's date didn't precede the their opponent's. I am nitpicky about evidence, so make sure your cards are relevant.

I do not blindly extend without a reason why. Please give me solid reasons as to why extending a card is important. Also, just because person drops and argument doesn't mean that they should lose. Dropped arguments happen all the time, so give me a real reason why a particular argument that was dropped should be valued.

I cannot say this enough, but DO NOT run 10 or 12 offcase just to kick out of them in block. I cannot stand it when teams that have the advantage of speed use it to abuse the affirmative. Do it and I will drop your speaks. That is one of my biggest pet peeves in the world.

My specific thresholds for arguments:

AC: I know it's very novice, but the affirmative plan must have a clear plantext. I've ran into debates where the plantext was unclear and made the debate very sloppy. On solvency, I presume NEG until the AFF proves they solve. I am very big on the stock issues. If the AFF cannot win all of the stock issues, they won't win the round.

Counterplans: When the negative runs a counterplan, I will immediately presume AFF. This means that NEG must prove that CP will solve the advantages better than plan. If the NEG decides to kick the CP at any point in the round, then I won't hold presumption against them. It is important that you have a valid net-benefit and a COMPETITIVE counterplan text.

Kritiks: I am weary of allowing kritiks because I've had too many competitors either run it wrong or run something so complex that it isn't understandable. Bottomline, if you run one, run it correctly and explain it well. Otherwise, I might have a hard time voting on it.

Disads: No credible link= no disad. I refuse to pull the trigger on it if you can't convince me of the link. However, if the AFF drops the link and you prove that it is important enough to vote on I will pull the trigger.

Theory: I personally despise theory. I ran it in high school, but learned to hate it because most of the time in turned to pointless bickering. If there is potential for abuse, you better prove it or I will dismiss it. With that said, I have voted a team down simply because thier strat created the potential for abuse, regardless of whether the team in that round was abused or not.

Topicality: I was T shark in high school, so run this argument right. Please don't run a shell that is very weak. If the AFF is non-topical, then prove it. Otherwise, accept that the AFF topical and pick a new strat. T is an independent voter for me. If I see that the AFF is non-topical and the NEG brings it up through the round, I vote NEG immediately.

This is just a basic idea of what I like to see and not see in a policy round. It certainly does not encompass the entirety of my philosophy, therefore if you have further questions that weren't answered here I am more than happy to answer them in the round.