Claussen,+Alex

A Paradigm by Alex Claussen Extend arguments Don't screw up the line by line Quote the good Doctor       For those who do not think in haikus, the rest of this paradigm will go further in depth as to my way of viewing the debate space.  First, some background. I debated policy in high school for Millard South under Scott Wike and Dana Christensen, which means that I'm familiar with both traditional and critical argumentation. I then left the activity for two and a half years for no discernable reason before returning to judge LD for Lincoln High in Lincoln, Nebraska. I currently serve as the assistant coach for Lincoln High, focusing on public forum and Lincoln-Douglas debate.  As a general rule, I let logic rule the debate round. I don't mean that the round should be reduced to an impact calculus or for the debaters to become senseless, unfeeling robots, but rather that your argument needs to make sense for me to vote for it. I will intervene as little as possible in debate (if you ask me to, I'll have no choice), but I will also not do much work connecting the dots for you on the flow. Spin me a story in-round, regardless of the field of debate I'm judging. Whatever your arguments are, make sure that they are the same from the beginning to the end of the round; don't just answer your opponent's arguments without reinforcing your own. Please, please do not drop your offensive arguments. That puts you at a distinct disadvantage for winning. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; display: block; font-family: 'lucida grande',tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10px; text-align: left;"> <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; display: block; font-family: 'lucida grande',tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10px; text-align: left;">Without further ado, a few thoughts: <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; display: block; font-family: 'lucida grande',tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10px; text-align: left;"> <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; display: block; font-size: 10px; text-align: left;">**Speed:** My policy background means that I can generally follow whatever it is that you are trying to say. However, most debaters find that speed trades off with clarity. Slurring your words together to make it seem like you talk faster doesn't fly. Communication is crucial to debate, and it doesn't work well if it sounds like your mouth is full of cotton. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; display: block; font-size: 10px; text-align: left;">

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; display: block; font-size: 10px; text-align: left;">
 * Topicality: ** While in high school, I assumed that a high threshold on Topicality was required. However, now that I'm looking at the way that debate has evolved even in the past five years, I think it is a useful argument for checking abusive and blatantly non-topical affirmatives. This does not mean that I will pull the trigger as soon as you frame the other team out of the round; rather, I think a discussion of what words really mean is an interesting way to begin a discussion of what it means to affirm and negate.


 * Theory: **Theory arguments should be run only in cases where there is evidence of abuse in-round. I used framework as a crutch in high school; it's easy to frame your opponent out of the debate that way. Theory should be used as a way of checking abuse, not as an offensive argument to pull out of nowhere in order to win a round.


 * Value/Criterion (LD): **As a non-LD debater, my introduction to the activity was through judging. I see the V/VC debate as important for evaluating who wins the round, but not a reason to win the round. They aren't offensive arguments; that's why you have contentions. Don't make this the entirety of your final speech.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; display: block; font-size: 10px; text-align: left;"> <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; display: block; font-size: 10px; text-align: left;">**Disadvantages/Counterplans (Policy):** There's not much better than a good nuclear war scenario. If you can prove to me that your opponents are going to blow up the universe, that's probably a necessarily bad thing. I'll buy a counterplan if you can prove its competitiveness; however, perms are shiny, and so if the affirmative can prove that they can solve your counterplan while still doing the plan then the neg is out of luck. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; display: block; font-size: 10px; text-align: left;"> <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; display: block; font-size: 10px; text-align: left;">**Policy Argumentation (Aff):** I don't think I need to write anything here. Nobody runs policy arguments in Nebraska anymore. It'd be sort of nice if one appeared. Yeah, that'd be nice. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; display: block; font-size: 10px; text-align: left;"> <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; display: block; font-size: 10px; text-align: left;">**Critical Argumentation (Aff):** Unfortunately, this is the status of debate, and so my only requirement will be that you defend your mindset to the end. Whatever you claim to solve for, you'd better solve for it. I will listen and evaluate it in an unbiased point of view. Plan texts are always appreciated so I know if you're going to the moon or merely exploring the way we define space. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; display: block; font-size: 10px; text-align: left;"> <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; display: block; font-size: 10px; text-align: left;">**Tag-team Cross-Examination:** I have no problems with both people asking questions during cross-examination, as long as you don't overwhelm your partner's time to talk and inquire. However, I do believe that teams should be punished for having to answer each other's questions. As such, if you wish to engage in tag-team cross-examination, you will be required to physically tag each other in. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; display: block; font-size: 10px; text-align: left;"> <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; display: block; font-size: 10px; text-align: left;">**General:** I consider myself to be a pretty open judge, but one thing that I will probably be upset about is wasting time. If you want to be funny in round, by all means; I love a laugh as much as the next person (and maybe more). However, if you're going to run arguments you don't believe in in an attempt to psyche out your opponent, I will not be happy. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; display: block; font-size: 10px; text-align: left;"> <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; display: block; font-size: 10px; text-align: left;">**How I vote:** This is the most difficult part of the judging philosophy, because it changes from round to round. Let's go ahead and assume that you tell me where to vote on the flow and I'll listen to, unless the only way to that argument is through a bunch of dropped arguments on your part. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; display: block; font-size: 10px; text-align: left;"> <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; display: block; font-size: 10px; text-align: left;">**What is debate?** <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; display: block; font-size: 10px; text-align: left;">In theory, that's the purpose of this entire paradigm, is it not? I think at the end of the day that debate is a conversation, and that it should ultimately be one that discusses substantial issues. Unfortunately, this doesn't always happen, but I like to think that it's not impossible for people to come together and really discuss. The only way to do this is to have clash in the round, so if you attempt to make the other team's arguments insignificant rather than answer them on face you're defeating the purpose of a debate. You can espouse your views on the fountain plaza in front of the student union at UNL if you aren't interested in anyone responding. If, however, you welcome a conversation, I am more than willing to listen, and I'm excited to listen to what it is that you have to propose, whether it's political, philosophical, or something new that's never been witnessed before. Debate is the place for ideas to develop and grow; let them. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; display: block; font-size: 10px; text-align: left;"> <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; display: block; font-size: 10px; text-align: left;">Seriously, though, don't forget to quote Theodor Geisel. The man knows his stuff. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; display: block; font-size: 10px; text-align: left;"> <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; display: block; font-size: 10px; text-align: left;">**If there's anything I missed on the paradigm, or you want clarifications, or you just want to give me an excuse to espouse my views while you increase your prep time, feel free to ask before the round.**
 * Framework (Policy): ** I was a framework debater my junior year, so that became my pet position. I'm willing to evaluate the debate under inclusive or exclusive frameworks, but you have to prove to me why your framework is better for the debate activity as a whole in order for me to vote on the issue. Make sure you don't screw up at all on the flow, or I may hate you forever and point it out in my RFD.