Martinson,+Gregg

=I **am a very stable genius.**=

=//**Expect a double loss 0 speaker points and an RFD that says "given in round" on every ballot.**//=

//**Also, in the Trump era my philosophy can be summed up best with "I will vote on what I feel is best. Don't bother with evidence, it's nonconvincing. The gut will give my RFD. "**//
//**Also a better summary of my philosophy can be found here:**// https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9RBXlE86Ng

Still reading? You must be desperate to pref a judge...

I was a high school debater in the eighties. I have been working with forensics since the early nineties in both the speech world and then debate. I have judged LD and Policy in my time, and I feel that I have a pretty good handle on evaluating the arguments in a round. I can flow and will accept a variety of arguments from policy to critical.

I have heard a lot of novice rounds this year as the Head Debate Coach for Roseville. I understand many of the arguments and I am open to listening to your debate.

Qualifications
I'd like to judge your debate round. I have been a head coach in policy debate for 8 years. I have a BS and an MS from Minnesota State University, Mankato. No, I do not have a politics, law or philosophy degree. I don't work at camps, and I haven't lived on the national scene. I have not written a complex thesis on poststructural theory as it applies to politics scenarios. I have not been the cover boy for the NFL magazine, My high school debate experience was really not spectacular. I don't work at a school that requires ascots, There is no esquire at the end of my title. I do like to flow debate rounds and am pretty open to arguments. I feel like I have gotten pretty good at giving an RFD.

General Judge Paradigm
I do not believe in intervention as a judge, so don't expect me to reject an argument, even if it is arguing that the lizard people are secretly our leaders. I guess that example sounds like I am more of a games player, and I would accept, to a certain extent, that debate is a game that is nearly rooted in reality. I am open to non-traditional arguments, or arguments that are not normed to my conventional perspective. Deep down I wish it were more rooted in reality, but I don't judge on this. I flow, weigh the quality of arguments and vote. I will access my outside knowledge, but generally I would prefer not to intervene, In the end, judges have to intervene in nearly every round but I'd like to avoid it.

Conventional Policy Debates
I like them. I would love to hear more attacks on internal links in DAs that take away probability or reduce magnitude. I am convinced more by teams that know the material. Higher speaks come from stronger rebuttals that answer in organized clear calculus. I especially love politics scenarios, but this should be an element of debate that is more strongly grounded in reality than many other elements. I also believe in indicting the evidence, though this happens infrequently.

Ks
I will judge Kritics. My small, non-ascot wearing team pushes Ks as our competitive approach. Some things to be certain about in critical debating: > Debate is a form of communication. It is essential that I be able to hear your arguments and your evidence. Don’t assume that I will ask to see evidence after the round if I couldn’t understand it the first time. I will do my best to attentively listen to your arguments. It annoys me that breadth has won out over depth in the debate world. I'll flow your arguments, and grant your arguments if you read your tags clear. I will question warrants of cards--I think that this critical element of debate is sadly lacking in the world of 4 nuke wars versus 3 extinctions.
 * 1) Know your argument. If you are spitting out cards for your kritic without tying to the round and using your own analysis to have it work, I won't vote for it.
 * 2) Explain the Alt. I need to be told in very specific and clear terms how your Kritic plays out in the round, in the debate world, and to our mind-set.
 * 3) I believe in link debate. Make sure you put work into this.
 * 4) Do not spit out a Kritic at warp speed. Philosophical prose is dense, thick and full of terms that I, to be honest, don't read on a regular basis. I do not have a degree in poly sci or philosophy. I have read a fair amount--I have curiosity, but I need to have things make sense.
 * 5) I will eval the K against the round impacts. There is no real calculus for this--let's be honest. If the K has the big impact an excellent time frame, but the calculus is the magnitude of the K versus the impact, magnitude and time-frame of the round(if I buy the K).

**Counterplans...**
**...**can be a reason to vote negative if they are competitive and, therefore, give some reason to reject the affirmative policy.I'm open to them, but I am also open to perms. I **do believe that counterplans should be non-topical**. If that's old school so be it. I believe Neg gains too much ground by being able to take Aff ground plus anything non-topical.

**Topicality**
is important for fairness and debatability only. I will vote negative on topicality whenever the negative successfully shows that the affirmative fails to meet the resolution. Unfortunately, T is a time-suck and a tactic in the game and rarely is it used to actually argue topicality. It is often an exercise in careful refutation and a way to throw a bunch of garbage at a 2AC. I don't believe in 4 T violations. That's just gaming. Go get some dice and roll a dungeons and dragons character if you don't want to really debate.

Theory
I don't mind being told what to do within the round. You should back it up with good reasoning, especially if you are pulling me into a very different approach to the debate round than I am used to. Generally, I'll try to accept your premise if I can buy this as a reasonable premise. If it is not, you better spend time convincing me.

General Observations:

 * Constructive speeches are for new arguments. Use rebuttals to refine your arguments. Evidence that refines your arguments are fine.
 * Please be patient in explaining overly ** complex framework arguments ** . If there are multiple turns on the framework flow, you better make sure that I am flowing along with you and don't' be surprised if a blippy but winning argument isn't given huge weight.
 * If I throw my hands in the air in a round or yell clear, I mean I need help. I am not one of those judges that claim to have read all of the Kritic authors. I have read some of it, but don't expect me to be an expert...
 * For that matter, it's a cheap win to win a round when your opponent didn't understand your cards either. Education is key!
 * I'd love to see debate more rooted in examining cards in more detail, but we do not live in that world. This is a preferred argument..

Please remember that we are all learning and enjoying the experience. Don't abuse your partner, your opponent or the judge. If things don't go your way in a round, it's great to advocate for changing unfair conditions, but don't abuse anyone.

Lincoln Douglas:
In the LD world I am willing to entertain arguments from a much more conventional sphere. I like the policy-oriented arguments, but I am perfectly comfortable with a criterion value debate if that's where it goes. Make sure that you are densely philosophical arguments are thoroughly argued and defended and theory/framework is well developed. I am fine with disadvantages, Ks or conterplans as L/D arguments and I am fine with evaluating that in round. I believe in letting you structure how the round goes as much as possible, if that means continuing cross-x well into prep, so be it. I am less versed in LD though I have coached for a while in this activity.

Ultimately my philosophy shouldn't be too different than this one expect a double loss 0 speaker points and an RFD that says "given in round" on every ballot.