Laxson,+Patrick

Laxson,Patrick

__**POLICY PARADIGM SUMMARY**__

 * When I evaluate policy debate rounds, I do start with a MOSTLY //tabula rasa// foundation. I encourage both teams to lay out plausible arguments, plans and warrants, and I expect them to cross-apply these in refutation as much as possible. Highest stack of voters standing at the end of the round generally wins, unless a team misses a major fundamental burden (K, T, plan/CP/Perm, evidence credibility). I am not a fan of squirrel arguments, fatalism or gimmicks. With harms of status quo (aff) or aff plan (neg) - your link chain must build to a PLAUSIBLE, believable brink or I simply will not buy it.**


 * My buying a Mickey Mouse hat does not = global thermonuclear war, no matter how much you spin it.**

__**EVALUATION OF ARGUMENTATION**__


 * I will typically defer to stock issue areas as a judging standard unless I am asked to do otherwise. If you do ask me to evaluate in a different manner - please make your framework clear and demonstrate fairness with it.**


 * I prioritize stocks in this order:**


 * 1) __Resolutional Analysis.__ If aff leaves kritiks untouched or diminished, it's a loss, period. Topicality - both sides have the burden to keep the ball on the field, and to have the right ball. Trying to argue tangents is like my showing up to ref a pro football game, only to see a bike race.**


 * 2) __Harms__ - if light/no negative consequences happen with status quo or aff plan implementation, the round is over.**


 * 3) __Inherency of action__ - if the harms are realistic, is something already being done in the status quo to address or prepare for it? If you prove that plans or CP's are redundant, then your opponent will lose inherency**


 * 4) __Solvency__ - Even if fiat is claimed by the affirmative (I only allow it if the word "should" is in the resolution) aff still needs to show what changes their plan will make, and demonstrate that the //idea// of applying it will result in solvency that meets whatever framework standard dominates the round.**


 * 5) __Significance__ - Signification arguments are usually in the eye of the beholder, so you will need to have some serious cards backing them up to clearly demonstrate how a plan or CP will make no difference whatsoever in the world your team operates in. This can be done, but only with a powerful punch in order for sig. to be a serious voter. It's too simple for a lazy team to barf up something like "their plan is irrelevant, it, like, does nothing". You have to solidly prove why.**

__**STYLE**__


 * I do factor in style and professionalism with presentation, but not with as much weight as other events. Spread CLEARLY. Communicating like you have a mouthful of enchiladas at 300wpm is NOT spreading, it's spewing and I don't flow it. Enunciate clearly, and you can go off to the races. Be sure to signpost and tag for me with slightly slower speed and greater volume emphasis. If you really want to hit me over the head with a claim, slow down and knock it out. Open CX is fine. Try not to sandbag your opponent in questioning. State your question - then PLEASE give your opponent more than - I don't know - two words to deliver an acceptable answer.** **Sportsmanship is professionalism and professionalism is persuasive.**


 * If you have any questions for me, feel free to e-mail me at millsdebate@gmail.com**


 * I'll be posting an L-D paradigm in the near future. Good luck!**