Munce,+Caleb

= 0Preface: I competed in debate, I had my rounds, I debated what I wanted to debate. I am no longer a debater, you are; the round is yours, not mine. I will try my best to go along with whatever you want to do with the round and not carry on my preconceived notions of debate. All that being said here's my wiki. =

**Affiliation:** Sioux Falls Lincoln **Experience:** I debated all four years of high school. My first two years I debated policy debate. My second two years I debated Lincoln Douglas. In policy debate I was the 1N, 2A and usually took the politics DA, but my partner usually went for K's of various categories. In LD I mainly debated the Cap K, but I loved ontological arguments.


 * __Generic philosophy:__ //My main responsibility in any round is ensuring it is a safe space for both teams to have discussion.// I default policy maker if not told to do otherwise. I actively try to limit any sort of judge intervention by myself, I will try my ultimate best to evaluate all arguments in the round on face. That being said I feel certain arguments are so extremely harmful they warrant judge intervention (Racism good, genocide good, etc.). It is the burden of you, the debaters, to explain your arguments to me; WARRANTS WIN ROUNDS. For K's specifically I have read a lot of the literature, but I do expect you to explain your position thoroughly and not be overly reliant on the typical K buzzwords. **

//*These are subject to change if an argument is presented in the round (like a Roll of the Ballot)//
 * My decision calculus will probably change depending on the nature of the round the debaters wish to debate. So I will try to explain them here **

**Policy round:** Policy maker Impact calc, Magnitude, probability, time frame. I will vote for risk of offense against just defensive args. **Policy round w/ ethics impacts:** This devolves to whomever wins the framework debate, Util vs Deont **Policy round w/ counterplan:** Same as Policy round, see Counter Plan section below **Policy round with kritik:** Every round is different depending on what the K is - I am very open to viewing the round through the lens of the K if that argument is won. **Performance Round:** I am willing to vote for performance args. Decision making is the same as the K. I think there should be some sort of link, however tenuous, to the resolution for performance Affs

// **Speaks:** // 30: I think you are the best speaker at the tournament. 29: Best speaker in the round - You were clear and provided all the warrants I could ever need. 28: Good speaker - this is the normal starting point for me. 27: Okay, but used only tag line extensions, and didn't seem to have a complete grasp of the round. 26 and below: you did something really wrong.

Specific Issues -

__ Speed __ : I can handle a good amount of speed. Probably a 6-7 out of 10. I have only seen a few debaters I couldn't keep up with. Clarity is the most important aspect. If you happen to be the kind of debater that goes super saiyan and accesses a really high pitch when you speed read, you need to be very clear.

__ Theory: __ I'm open to any kind of theory if it is articulated well. PICs may be a bit abusive, but I don't think they really are. Condo is a voter if it is conceded. You can go for a perm. I think running really blippy ASPEC or OSPEC is probably squirrelly

__ Topicality __ : I'm down to vote for T. I would like to hear it argued as a DA

__ Disadvantages: __ DA's are nice. I think a specific DA could be really devastating to an aff, but we have all run generic DA's and I am willing to listen to them. I think a good debater has an overview of the DA in the block.

__ Counterplans: __ A well researched, specific counterplan is beautiful. I firmly believe that the counterplan is the most under-utilized tool in the neg arsenal and should be used in conjunction with a strong internal net benefit grounded in literature surrounding the aff. Any and all theory arguments need to be well explained.

__ Kritiks __ : I spent a good deal of time working with these so I feel right at home in K rounds. I've read almost all major kritiks at one point or another but if you are going off the beaten path and reading something I've not yet seen be sure to explain it in terms we can all understand. I do hold kritiks to a higher level of scrutiny because they are often very fluid in that they have a shifting win condition that varies from K to K. Make sure it is clear why I should evaluate things a certain way or why I should care. If you don't give me framing then you aren't getting a ballot.