Shum,+Garrett

Judge Philosophy for Garrett Shum:


 * Relevant Bio info:** I debated a bit in high school; LD and Policy. I am current debating in NPDA parli and NFA-LD in college.


 * Overall:** I generally operate under the flow paradigm. However, I still view voting for one side as a vote for an entire platform, not necessarily a single argument. If you make arguments that contradict, without theory to justify them, I default to rejection.

Also, if I am judging novice, I will only allow you to spread if you opponent can handle it. I have had to console multiple novices through emotional breakdowns after they hit a spreader at their first tournament and didn't know how to respond. It isn't cool. You aren't a great debater if you have to use tactics you know you opponent can't beat to win. You are just a common jerk.
 * SPEED/SPREADING**: I am from a more traditional area. ALTHOUGH, I am perfectly fine with them, I am not as able to follow along as someone who simply has had more practice than I.

However, losing framework is not an automatic loss; one can also prove that their contention link to their opponent's framing and, thus, I should still vote for your side.
 * LD:**
 * Framework:** Look at the word for a bit. "Framework" or "Framing" mean the way that we view the world. Framework allows us to make value judgments based on what we see. Thus, **//it is your framework that gives your contentions// //meaning.//** If your contention is that "X makes people unhappy," it means nothing if you drop your opponent's Kant framework. Thus, I tend to weigh framework, in relation to contentions, 75:25.

However, as I competed in Policy more than LD, I tend to assess them through that lens; read my Policy section if you are considering running them.
 * “Policy” arguments:** The use of the word “policy” to describe certain styles of argumentation is an attempt to dissuade people from thinking in more than one dogmatically accepted way by attaching a social stigma to an action through language. Go for it.


 * Policy:**
 * Roadmapping/Signposting:** These are //especially// important in Policy, as there is a lot more to flow on more sheets of paper than in LD. If you do not do these (or do them very poorly), I may vote you down simply because I could not follow. This is not an issue of speed either, this is an issue of emphasizing relevant information.


 * T:** I am okay with T, but think that it should only be used in more extreme cases. It is a procedural, meaning it is PRE-FIAT. If you drop T, you //ipso facto// **LOSE**.


 * Counterplans:** Make sure that you are mutually exclusive to the AFF (or, if you're running a PIC, have something more than just "We agree harder"). Make sure that the CP doesn't contradict other arguments you make. (I have had people run an agent counterplan, but then also have arguments about the actual mechanism. At that point, you're telling me that we should have other people enact a plan that doesn't work...)


 * Theory**: Don't spend too much time on it, it's not too fun to judge.


 * K:** I am totally fine with Ks, just make sure that they link properly, have impacts that matter, and themselves don't make possibly reprehensible generalizations.


 * "Joke" or "Wacky" arguments (Dedev, Time Cube, Mao K, etc.):** I am willing to listen to these. I think that many of them can be taken in very serious directions (maybe not in LD, as it lacks the second NC necessary to make many of these work, IMO).


 * Minutia:**
 * Flex-Prep:** Go for it, just ask first in round.


 * Flashing:** As my previous statements of not counting flashing toward prep seem to encourage people trying to steal prep by taking forever to flash, I am going to start counting flashing toward its own time limit (when I am the only judge). You will get **TWO MINUTES** of "Flash Time" per round. That timer will begin once you say prep has ended, and it will end once your speech begins.


 * The 3AR**: I have had multiple debaters attempt to argue with me over my decision when tournaments allow disclosure. I will answer questions along the lines of "What could I have done better?" But when you are demanding "Why didn't you vote for me on this???" I will nuke your speaks and get on my way.