Wurz,+Ben

I was an LD debater in high school, and I currently coach and judge LD and Policy.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round if you need to clarify anything, and ask me for an oral critique if you want one. I firmly believe in disclosing results and giving oral critiques.

__//**Don't be afraid to run something creative**//__.

__**For LD**__: I will vote on dropped framework and arguments conceded in CX.

I hate it when someone uses a criterion that is not really a criterion (like justice or social welfare). That said, I am willing to listen to almost anything, however strange it is, //if you can explain it well enough//. If you have a criterion that is not normally a criterion, explain to me why it works. In most cases, I favor being concise over thorough, but here, if you are explaining something unusual, be thorough.

In general, I feel that performance and narrative have a place in policy, but not in LD - mostly because I haven't seen narrative in LD that actually led to good debate. If you want to run narrative or performance in front of me, be very confident that you are running it well and that it will contribute to having a good round.

Also, take a look at what I say for policy because some of it applies to LD.

__**For Policy**__: For the **Latin America Topic**: I generally think that the resolution is fairly Aff-biased in terms of Topicality. I think it's a very broad resolution and most Affs that I have seen are Economic Engagement. I also think that T-EE is run way too much. My advice is to run T-EE as a test of competition, but not for much else. //I generally give Aff the benefit of the doubt on T-EE debates//.

I am probably the closest to being a tab judge, though I don't know if I would listen to absolutely //anything//. I generally default to kritikal policy-maker or kritikal games.

The policy-maker part of me really likes good explanation of impacts. Both sides should give a good impact calc with voters.

I generally don't care how fast you go as long as you're clear. If you aren't clear, I will shout "clear" at you once, and if it happens again, I will stop flowing. Make sure you slow down so that I can hear your taglines and authors.

Make sure you make your organization clear and tell me where certain arguments should be flowed.

I'd rather not have to, but I do vote on dropped arguments.

I love economics. If you show me something that has sound econ. theory behind it, I will like you more (but it doesn't necessarily mean I will vote for you). On the contrary, if you show me something with terrible econ. theory (I've seen a lot of spending/budget DAs like this), I may discount that argument. Don't apply microecon to a macro level and vice versa. If you want me to buy economic decline impacts, you must work very hard. I prefer spending arguments that focus on opportunity cost, rather than deficits and debt.

Topicality: Yes, I will vote on it. If the Aff is clearly non-topical, and the Neg runs topicality well (spends a full 2NR on it), I will vote Neg. But, if the Aff is topical and the Neg runs topicality as a time-suck, I will probably (but not always) vote Aff. Aff, if you are certain that you are topical, and the Neg runs T, put an RVI on it and move on. That will probably win you the round. However, I am fine with T being run as a test of competition along with a K.

Theory: Not my favorite, but it has its place.

Counter-plans: A good, solid CP is a great way to win rounds. The more interesting and off-the-beaten-path, the better.

Kritiks: //I like them//. Some of the easiest ways to win in front of me are a good Cap K, a good Fem K, or a good Security K. But make sure you run them well and link to something, and impact them well. I also like K Affs.

DAs: I'll vote on them, but I prefer more unique DAs that look like you've put work into them, rather than generic ones (spending, politics, etc). I like to see well-developed DAs that are well-linked and well-impacted, and sometimes have multiple of each.

Rebuttals: Don't just extend a bunch of cards; tell me //why they matter//. I want good analysis. Explain things to the fullest, don't expect me to draw the conclusions for you.

Conditionality: I like conditionality on the Neg, and if you run several off-case arguments, you should kick all but one (or maybe two) and focus on that. I really don't care if you run 10 off-case arguments in your constructives, as long as you kick the vast majority of them in rebuttals. If the Aff does want to run Condo bad, I will listen to it, and the Neg had better respond.

Framework: This is how rounds are won or lost. It is very important.

CX: I generally consider CX to be binding. Be careful what you concede. If your opponent concedes something that helps you, use that to your advantage.