Paul+Gravley

I coach Northland Christian.

tl;dr. Read what you want to read and read it at any speed you want to read it at. I will yell clear. I feel better evaluating util debates, but will do my best to evaluate arguments in the round. As a default, T/Theory is a matter of competing interpretations - T is drop the debater, theory is drop the argument. I'm easy on 1ar extensions just mention something about it and weigh. You need to win a RVI to win offense against a shell.

Now, for some minutia:

__ **Judging summary** __


 * I believe that the judge's role is to evaluate the arguments presented in the round. I have voted on anything and everything, and I try to be as tabla-rasa as possible, but I am under no illusion that I have no preferences. Thus, for the sake of intellectual honesty, my preferences, in no particular order, are as follows:
 * I prefer good arguments (of course!). The art of making good arguments incorporates at least three things: the claim, a reason to believe the argument claim, and an implication if the claim is true. That said, I think this can take place effectively in any number of ways: with or without a value, as a plan, as a narrative (run well, this is one of my favorite ways to present arguments), as a kritik, as a disad, as a counter-plan,etc.
 * I prefer arguments on the topic. That said, I do enjoy a good theory or k debate. Whatever the strategy you choose to pursue, I will do my best to listen and weigh how you ask me to weigh the arguments.
 * I prefer theory debates to occur from shells (interpretation, violation, standards, voter) and for there to be actual abuse. I prefer to view theory as a matter of competing interpretations, and I am more swayed by fairness voters than education voters.
 * It makes sense to me that the AFF should get an RVI on theory interps. I'm less inclined on Topicality. Regardless, you need an RVI to win a theory debate if you are responding to theory.
 * I prefer K's to have an alternative and a link story specific to the topic and/or your opponent's case.
 * I prefer evidence to pure analytics.
 * I prefer a standard or a plan text to evaluate arguments. The standard (whatever that ends up being) is extremely important. It tells me how I should evaluate the round. Be clear about the standard, why you are winning the standard, and why your arguments, based on the standard, outweigh your opponents arguments. Also, if you have "pre-standard" arguments, you need to tell me why I need to look at them before the standard.Finally, burden structures are also fine with me. Simply, I want a decision calculus.
 * I prefer the standard to be util, but I'm open to just about anything else, too.
 * I prefer the resolution to be viewed in terms of "it is desirable to affirm" or "it is desirable to negate." Functionally, this means I prefer advocacy debates over debates about what and what does not exist. I will (and have) vote for skepticism and other similar arguments if you are winning theoretical reasons to prefer or your interpretation is unchallenged.
 * I average 28's for speaks. If I think you deserve to break, you'll get your 29 or 30, no worries. I do not think that there is any reason to be rude in rounds. Speaker points can and will reflect your demeanor.
 * I will usually give a decision following the round and then offer an oral critique. The critique is meant to be educational. Please feel free to ask questions and respond to what I have to offer. If we can't talk because of time, please find me after the round and I will explain anything I can. That said, arguing will not change my ballot.
 * Speed is fine. I can flow just about anything. If I can't, I will yell "clear." That said, I prefer substantive debate, and speed to develop arguments is preferred to speed to blip arguments.
 * If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.
 * I believe that this is your activity. All (well almost all, I will have trouble evaluating genocide good arguments, for example) arguments will be evaluated, and if they're developed and weighed well, I will vote for them. In fact, I've found that I enjoy innovative strategy and arguments and have been rewarding them with wins and high speaks (narratives and divine command theory frameworks, for example).
 * I will not reward cheating, however - number your shells correctly, don't steal speech or prep time, and make sure that whatever you read is exactly what you give to your opponent. I probably won't give you a loss for these things, but I will significantly reduce speaker points.
 * Bring a flash drive or figure out who has one before the round (I'm ok with emailing and dropbox links, too)
 * Most of all, have fun!