Packer,+Joe

My default judging paradigm: is the topical plan presented in the 1AC more desirable then the status quo or a competitive policy alternative. If you are asking me to vote for you for another reason you should make it clear what that reason is and be prepared to answer theoretical objections. Ideally debate would comprised of case specific disads, case arguments and anti topical counter plans ( e.g. engagement on china topic, carbon sequestration on the energy topic). I realize that most debates do not proceed along these lines and I am prepared to offer flexibility. A good guideline is that arguments that are specific to the resolution and/or the plan are desirable.

Some other basic presumptions (my standards absent a debate on the issue.)

1. Reject the argument not the team is my default on theory issues. This means that absent a clearly articulated reason as to why a team should lose the debate I will not vote on theory. (Note: Yes this means even if the other team drops a random voting issue I will not vote against them if you do not provide clear warrants as to why they should lose the debate). 2. The burden of rejecting an argument on theory is much lower then rejecting the other team. 3. Topicality is a voting issue. 4. My default T standard is reasonability. 5. I don’t subscribe to an offense defense paradigm; good defense is in many cases enough, especially with theory debates. 6. Many debate arguments can be defeated without cards, I encourage you to read Jim Lyle’s article on doing just that in the medical assistance to Africa DRG (or just use some common sense). 7. Despite having coached at Wake I do not share their undying enthusiasm for conditionality and my skepticism to it grows the more suspect the counterplan or kritik alternative is.

Things that will get you lower speaker points/make me hate you.

1. Be rude to the other team. 2. Not answer cross ex questions. 3. Be unclear in CX about the status/framework of conterplans and kritiks. 4. Read incomprehensibly. Ross Smith offers useful advice in his judging philosophy “Assess your intelligibility by watching me and my flow. If I’m not writing much, you have a problem.” 5. Read unwarranted/unqualified evidence. (this will just make me hate you)

One way to get (perhaps unfairly) good speaker points from me is to be entertaining. Many debaters, who were not the best at debate, but nevertheless were pleasant to watch debate, (being funny, speaking passionately) have received speaker points that would typically fall outside of their skill range.