Kulacki,+A.K.

I debated 4 years of Policy Debate at Claremont High School, and this is my first year judging tournaments instead of competing in them.

(NOTE: I haven’t taught camp or judged many rounds ON THIS TOPIC; EXPLAIN THE ACRONYMS)

I prefer Policy strats to K strats. This is just my preference, seeing as it’s called Policy Debate, but that doesn’t mean I’m not willing to vote for any K strat. Just clearly link and explain your arguments, K or otherwise. Thus, the ideal 2NR strategy for my ballot is a DA+CP.

Alt/Perm: I'm very receptive to crazy perms to answer crazy alts. (read: If the alt is super vague and wishy-washy, I’m probably going to give an equally ridiculous perm a fair amount of consideration.) However, Intrinsic perms are probably bad.

CP/Perm: Counterplans are opportunity costs, and Perms are tests of competition. I tend to think PICs are good and strategic. In that case, prove that there is a significant net benefit over the Plan, otherwise I’m more inclined to listen to the response that the Plan IS the CP for solvency purposes.

Theory: Prove abuse is occurring in-round. I have always been annoyed by theoretical abuse arguments that turn out just to be time-sucks. This will impact speaks.

Theory: I believe Conditionality is probably good. The Plan should be argued on whether it will work AND if it does, what other things happen.

Topicality: I tend to think more things are topical than others. If you really want me to vote on T, make arguments in the Standards and Voter debate. A list is not an argument; arguments have warrants. Make sure you prove a violation. If your violation is weak, I'm inclined to give the Aff their We Meet. It is VERY difficult to convince me that something is non-topical unless it is blatantly clear that it’s not. As a debater, I was always annoyed by n-Off strats with at least three T’s somewhere in the mix. If you’re going to call topicality, have a valid claim or strategic purpose to it, don’t just use it as a time-suck.

(NOTE: This is perhaps my strongest grievance: using theoretical arguments spread as empty shells to win debates. Make substantive arguments!)

China: I would like to believe that I am better read on China than most debaters and other judges. Please don't read cards by Gregory Kulacki in my round; it's odd for me to deal with, and most of the time people get it wrong. Kritikal Affs: Make it clear whether or not you defend the Plan/Fiat or not. Make your framework clear.

Speaker Points: I start from a 27 and move up (rarely down) from there. Competitors should be generally polite, to each other as well as their judge. A good performance in CX will boost your speaks a lot. Speed: Speed is fine up to a point. I will say to be clear if you're being unclear. If this happens chronically within the round and is not rectified, I will simply not flow the arguments. SIGNPOST CLEARLY; I can't flow your arguments if I am looking for where to flow it.