Ogbuli,+Anthony


 * TL;DR: ** Do your thing as long as you do it well.

I debated for Homewood Flossmoor in High School for three years. I debated for Illinois State University for two years I debated for the University of Texas at Dallas for three years.
 * Experience: **

I have a more than decent grasp of debate in general. I judge a good amount of tournaments a year so I have an okay understanding of the topic but don't assume I know every detail and nuance of it. Needless to say you should probably explain your arguments regardless.
 * General: **

I will evaluate all arguments. I think like most judges I like to believe that I evaluate debate from an unbiased position...but like all judges I do have some predispositions

If you tell me to star, double star, flag, or read a card and it's trash I dock speaker points 10 out of 10 times.

I don't like to read a lot of evidence at the end of debates, but I definitely reward good cards.


 * Specifics: **


 * Framework: ** I judge a ton of these debates. To be honest I couldn't care less about either sides arguments so play ball. These debates are almost always decided by impact calculus, and whether or not the negative is able to absorb some of the affirmative's offense, whether through topical version of the aff, switch side debate, etc..

You should just debate this however you wish, but if you want to know some of my personal feelings about these debates........


 * The aff almost always gets to weigh the aff against Framework.
 * The aff doesn't get to perm interps, framework should be about what competing models of debate look like. That being said if you allow the aff to finesse you in this fashion, you're probably going to lose.
 * Fairness is an internal link more than it is an impact, but with sufficient work it can be an impact, this is work missing from the vast majority of framework debates. It's probably not the best impact against teams making identity based arguments, against all other teams it should make an appearance.
 * Substantive framework impacts such as cede the political, agonism, deliberation, etc are generally more persuasive especially against identity based arguments
 * T versions of the aff are like perms, why not make several of them?


 * Counterplans: ** I think counterplans are a fundamental part of debate. Well thought out specific counterplan are one of the strongest debate tools that you can use. If you're gonna run a counterplan make sure you can theoretically justify it. If counterplans that compete off resolved, should, etc are at the top of your box, I personally wish your soul damnation, but rarely do affirmative's invest enough in the theory debate on these counterplans for that to deter you.


 * DAs ** : DAs are also a core debate argument. I am a big fan of politics DA. Specific DAs are always a plus. Contrived DAs are contrived for a reason...and I'll leave it at that.


 * Kritiks: ** I have a pretty good grasp of a lot of the popular Kritiks, but that isn't an excuse for a lack of explanation when reading your argument. I refuse to do that work for you regardless of my previous knowledge. That being said, I'm down otherwise. I think that the framework debates on these are stale and usually worthless. The aff should get to weigh the aff, the neg obviously get their kritik, can we start from here or make these debates more innovative.


 * Case: ** You should read it. Lots of it. Its good, makes for good debates, and is generally underutilized.


 * Topicality: ** I enjoy good T debates......not like T substantial. Unfortunately T debates are normally really messy, so the team to really put the debate into perspective and be very clear on how the two worlds interact first generally wins. If you're looking for a judge willing to pull the trigger on T, I'm probably a good judge for you.


 * Theory: ** In accordance to popular belief I like theory. I enjoy good theory debates. I honestly believe affirmative teams let the negative get away with a ton of bullshit, and shouldn't be afraid to not only run theory but to go for it and go for it hard. And to a lesser extent the negative in respect to the affirmative. I honestly believe debaters respond to a win-loss record paradigm so I believe the ballot can be used to punish them. That being said I am by no means an aff theory hack, but if you're going to do something abusive on the neg you should take the time to cover your ass on theory. Also I think everything about topicality above applies.

Impact Comparison If...then statements Confidence Flagging important issues in debate Jokes Respect Good/Strong CX questions and answers
 * Things that are good and you should probably have/do **

Tech over Truth Smart Analytics can beat evidence Uniqueness probably decides the direction of the link Uniqueness can overwhelm the link New 1AR arguments are probably inevitable and good to some extent Prep time stops once you save the speech to your flashdrive Debate is a game. Global Warming is real.
 * Things I kinda believe **