Rogers,+Dillon

Paradigm: Stock Issues/Games Player Communication Skills **=** Resolution of Issues Quality **__>__** Quantity

Topicality- 5 Counterplans- 3 Disadvantages- 4 ASPEC- 5 OSPEC- 1 Kritiks/Theory- 3 On-Case- 5
 * __Negative Strategies (1-Dislike; 5-Like): __**

Philosophy Statement: ** Debaters whose use of rapid delivery interferes with their communication with the audience (THE JUDGE) and debate colleagues have forgotten that debate is a form of public speaking. To help restore the fundamental purpose of training debaters to communicate with their audience, my ballots carry the instructions that rapid delivery which interferes with effective communication is to be severely penalized. ** >> >>> >>>
 * Abuse/Abusive; The only thing that is abusive in a policy debate round is when a debater can’t explain and/or doesn’t know his/her argument, leaving the opponent in the clouds.
 * o Don’t waste your time arguing abuse. Instead of whining about abuse, move on and present an argument.
 * o The 2NC is a constructive speech for a reason.
 * o I am more than open to squirrel affirmatives as long as the affirmative has their own interpretations of the resolution defined. This is not abusive, this is educational.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">NO SPREADING!
 * o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">If I cannot understand you, __I WILL NOT FLOW IT.__ If I didn't flow it, it didn't happen. Emphasize your tag lines and citations; blow through the evidence. You should read the judge the tag line(s) at the same rate that you would speak to anyone outside of debate. If the judge is not flowing, you’re speaking too fast.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">Your speeches should entail commentary along with the cards that you are reading. Sign post and explain where you are going with your arguments!
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">Arguments
 * o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">Tag lines and evidence do not satisfy as arguments. You should use your evidence to back up your arguments, or contentions.
 * o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">Arguments should have sufficient evidence. A lack of evidence in an argument makes it a weak one and will likely be thrown out before the round decision is made.
 * o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">There should be internal links to all Disadvantages. If the Affirmative points out the lack of an internal link, the Disadvantage will not be voted on.
 * o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">As the negative, you should begin with numerous arguments and drop the least effective ones, leaving the judge with about three to five arguments to make his/her decision. Only carry your strongest arguments on to the second rebuttal.
 * o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">AUTHOR ANALYSIS. AUTHOR ANALYSIS. AUTHOR ANALYSIS.
 * o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">DATE ANALYSIS. DATE ANALYSIS. DATE ANALYSIS.
 * o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">If do not run at least one original argument throughout the entire debate, your speaker points will be effected. On case cards will satisfy.
 * o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 1.5;">As a policymaker, I do not favor a “two-world” approach by the negative. I will cross all contradicting arguments off of my flow.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">Evidence:
 * o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">College professors are intelligent, but they are in their own world. The same standard applies to writers for news columns. As a debater of policy, you are a scholar yourself. I want facts. Opinions that suffice would include intergovernmental reports or statements made by someone on the inside.
 * o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">Please provide analysis of the authors and dates when weighing cards against one another.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">Affirmatives:
 * o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">Your case should be fully developed, just as a policy would be. This is policy debate, not LD. To kritikal affirmatives I am not kind. All affirmatives must have an agent, an enforcer, funding, along with mandates and a timeframe for such mandates. Plan text does not constitute as a plan. (NOTE: If you don’t know how much your plan is going to cost and/or you can’t provide a step by step analysis of your plan, you probably have a very underdeveloped case.)
 * o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">I want a cost/benefit analysis! Again, this is policy debate.
 * o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">All affirmatives must have solvency that links to each harm as well as an inherent barrier that links to each harm. Do not forget significance as it plays a big role in my decision.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">CX
 * o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">Use this time to fill in your flow instead of asking “gotcha” questions. Extend on arguments that arise in CX.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">Flashing
 * o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">Flashing will be counted as prep time. The debater may road map while giving the flash drive to their opponent.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">Topicality: I am a topicality Nazi. I love topicality arguments, yet I like to see cases that interpret the resolution differently than others with generic cases (SQUIRRELS).
 * o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">All arguments must be developed with proper framework. Affirmatives should have their own interpretation of the term that is being debated.
 * o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">Extra topicality is boring. Move on.
 * o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">Topicality IS A VOTER. Do not waste your time telling me that it is not.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">NO TOPICAL COUNTER PLANS!
 * o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">If a debater wants to run a counterplan, the counterplan should NOT affirm the resolution. I rarely vote on a topical counter plan. A counter plan should provide ten times the benefits (figuratively) and be run ten times as well (figuratively) as the Affirmative’s plan in order to get my vote.
 * o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">I am not in favor of plan inclusive counter plans UNLESS it is simply changing the agent of action, aiming to win the significance stock issue in the round.
 * o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">Counter plans must be competitive.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">Impacts are weighed on reasonability!
 * o //__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">Nuclear War __//<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;"> and //__Human Extinction__// are very unlikely. I am more likely to vote on impacts like economic decline, hegemony, cyber terrorism, racism, and sexism. Don’t try to make a large jump from point C (Sexism) to point Z (Nuclear War). In reality, __it’s not going to happen.__ Just stick with the reasonable impacts.
 * o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">If you read me generic nuclear war and/or human extinction impacts with no link, I’ll take your nuclear war and nuke your speaker points. They are extremely boring and they destroy the educational value of the debate round.
 * § <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">This includes affirmatives.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">ASPEC/OSPEC
 * o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">ASPEC is my favorite argument against a plan. Any policy passed through congress has an agent of action. Your affirmative policy should have the same.
 * o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">Due to the fact that I require affirmatives to have a fully developed case, I rarely vote on OSPEC unless it is completely dropped by the affirmative in the 1AR.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">Politics:
 * o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">I am a political science major and I know politics fairly well. I love political debates. However, you must have knowledge of the current political world if you plan to make this debate political. In the great, complicated world of politics, things change from day to day. A card from the beginning of the season in that generic DA of yours is out of date. If you go for politics, you better have good analysis that is up to date. If it's not recent (from a week or so) evidence, especially when discussing political capital, don't expect me to vote on it. Affirmative, call them out on this!
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">Kritiks/Theory:
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">I have come to like good kritiks. You must slow down during the K debate! You alternative must be clear and overcome the kritik. If you blow through a K, I will most likely not even try to flow it.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">Theory shells I am not familiar with. SLOW DOWN!
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">1st Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR):
 * o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">This is the most important speech in the debate. If you drop it here, it flows negative. You don't have to win every argument, it is simply your responsibility to extend them all.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">Roadmaps:
 * o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">These are key.
 * o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">Specify off case arguments. Do not simply say, “four off case.” You should read, “topicality, topicality, D-A, counter plan.”
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">Prep Time:
 * o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 1.5;"> I keep prep time and it is kept as close to a continuous clock as possible. I will allow a short grace period for flashing, but CX will start immediately following each speech unless that team either informs me that they want to take prep time or that they are ready to speak.
 * o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">I expect you to use prep time appropriately. If you have the round in the bag, do not use 5 minutes of prep time before a rebuttal. I will get irritated.
 * o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">PLEASE ask questions for clarification during prep if you need to. I encourage this.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">Speaker Points:
 * o <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">If you get 30, hang your ballot on the refrigerator for Mother. Fluency, clarity, and articulation are key. Your level of analysis and ability to answer questions to your arguments in CX account for another part of your speaker points. I do not award speaker points; you earn them. You may earn speaker points back by abiding by my paradigms. In novice divisions, I will not go lower than 25 speaker points. In varsity divisions, I will go as low as the tournament allows. The following are little rules that I do not always abide by, but they will help the debater better understand how I allot speaker points:
 * **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 1.5;">1. **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">The failure to clearly emphasize tag lines and citations will result in an automatic deduction of three speaker points that may not be earned back.
 * **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 1.5;">2. **<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">Running only generic arguments throughout the entirety of the round will result in a deduction of at least two speaker points for each speaker.
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">On case cards will satisfy.
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">A win on topicality will nullify this deduction.
 * **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 1.5;">3. **<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">For each question that you cannot answer in CX, you lose a speaker point.
 * **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 1.5;">4. **<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">Reading a stack of cards and providing no commentary will result in a deduction of at least one speaker point.
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 1.5;">This includes the 1 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">st <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 1.5;"> Affirmative Constructive.
 * **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 1.5;">5. **<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">Also, I like to deduct a point or two for someone who is dressed unprofessionally. I can tell the difference between someone that can't afford it and someone who is just lazy.
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">Ethical Challenges/Cheating:
 * o <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">If there is an accusation of cheating the round will stop and the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove that the accused cheated. If cheating is proven, the round will be awarded to the accuser. If cheating is not proven, the round will be awarded to the accused. The purpose of this is to discourage false accusations, but at the same time encourage teams to challenge if they have solid evidence that cheating has occurred.