Henry,Rhyder

Top Line- I walk into the round with little to no preconceived notion of what arguments that will warrant a ballot, feel free to run whatever arguments you like within reason. I feel as if you are the debaters and I am to maintain a fairly blank slate mindset and you are to persuade me to favor your position or advocacy. That being said you may run whatever you want, I am always willing to hear your new and creative arguments.

Be respectful- Above all be respectful to yourselves, your opponents, your partner, and your judge. Do remember that you come representing a High School and yourselves, respect is very important in front of me nothing has to turn into a personal attack or reason to be frustrated with another team that would have to go as far as personal insults or attacks.

Discourse- This does matter as speakers and reps of your school I would expect a professional discourse, by this I mean any blatant, ablenormative, heteronormative, sexist, racist and downright violent discourse will result in the lowest amount of speaker points I am aloud to give but please do consider it a 0 as this is not acceptable. If it is an issue I will make a comment on the ballot of why the speaks were dropped. However their are microaggression that you may engage in on accident or unknowingly these will not be punished. If you are asked to stop using this discourse by your opponents in round and you do no your speaker points will reflect it. Please refrain from using "Patriarchy good", "Rape good", "Racism good" based evidence none of this is good and is incredibly offensive, I will take this as a personal attack and it will result in the lowest amount of speaker points possible but do consider it a 0 from me I will make it clear that they were dropped.

Cross ex- I will not flow cross ex but I will be listening, this is your chance to up your speaker points and reflect and show me your personality, so be sure you use it to your advantage. And I will allow tag team cross ex but do not dominate your partners cx I am almost about to change my decision on allowing it so please do not abuse it. And you may only enter your partners cross ex if invited to do so, never interrupt your partner during an answer.

Speed- I am fine with speed, make sure you go slow on taglines and authors that is all I ask. Also for the upcoming high profile tournaments I would highly appreciate being included in the jumping or email process to peer over cases or positions during prep to make sure I have gotten authors and taglines correct due to clarity or disconnection issues, However this is for your benefit and not necessarily required.

Prep- Ends when the flash drive leaves the computer/the email doc is sent, You can go ahead and use flex prep for clarification on cards taglines or authors but not to further a position or link your opponents into a trap however it is completely up to the debaters if they would like to answer the question. Depending on the tournament I usually will go 5 or 8 minutes of prep however if we do end up using 8 I expect it to be used completely, prep is your strategic choice to use but you should take advantage of it.

Speaker points will go 26.0-30 anything lower then that would most likely be for an kind of disrespect, bad discourse, or aggressive behavior towards a in round personal ie: Debater, Judge,

Critical affirmatives- I am fine with, for specifics direct yourself to the topicality section of the philosophy.

Exiting rooms- This is fine during prep time, if you need to use the bathroom or get drinks that's fine once again just be respectful and don't leave during a speech, however emergencies happen so I understand if you run out as fast as lightening during a speech if you need to take care of something personal that absolutely cannot wait. Leave the room how you found it after the round. Again respect everyone including the teachers who have to come back to the room after the tournament.

Card clipping- If accused, I will make a quiet note ask for evidence and carefully decide if clipping happened in the event that it did I will assign an auto loss and 17 speaker points to the offending debater, however if challenged and it turns out to be false the accusing team will be awarded a loss and 17 speaker points. Ways I have seen this ran that I will be incredibly lenient on is as a theoretical objection, at least that way it still is relevant to the debate However if you force me to stop the round and check it will be brought up to tab room to clarify my decision of the loss and drop of speaker points. This is an act of cheating that is incredibly wrong don't engage in it. Their is a difference between clarity and card clipping again these micro aggressions will not be punished but do be caution if you accuse someone of this make sure it is worth the risk. Also make sure the claim is about a blatant offense.

Debate experience. Debated two years for Hillcrest High School. Success sprinkled throughout my High School Debate career. I have judged 13 rounds this year on the Oceans policy topic.

Specific Arguments Theory- As a debater I absolutely love procedural debate especially when it is done well, through out my debate career I won multiple rounds and have beaten a few High reputation teams on theoretical objections so they do hold a special place in my heart as far as the debate goes I am always willing to hear your Theory arguments. specifically my policy on Theory would be. CONDO- 1-3 off case positions are fine 4 is tolerable- 5 and up is negative murder and will most-likely warrant a reason for me to err AFF. Per formative Contradictions- Again you may run your conditional advocacy's but I never liked the multiple worlds argument I think and have been taught that it is a fairly lazy way to engage that specific Theory debate I would much rather see clash on that specific flow for the negative to win that they can and should get those multiple worlds. Dispo- I hardly ever think is abusive it checks multiple conditional advocacy's but again if well impacted I am willing to listen Any type of CP Theory- I am willing to pull the trigger on these but you have to be able to prove a specific and clear link as well as standard that is well impacted and a reason to reject the team not the argument. Vague alts- Just like a plan text Kritiks should have a specific and clear course of action, if you read vague alts and win it I hardly see it as a reason to reject the team. But most certainly is a reason to reject the argument. Perms- are a test of competition not an advocacy, and multiple perms are almost as bad as conditional advocacy, again if theory is read you will have to prove why you should get multiple perms.

Topicality- again I love hearing a good procedural debate

Aff- It is your burden to prove that you are topical or at least have a better framework to evaluate the round under. and don't be discouraged to run your critical affs in front of me I'm not picky about untopical cases as long as you have a good explanation of why topicality shouldn't matter or your framework should come first. Topicality is never and never will be a reverse voting issue. ' Neg- Topicality is an extremely strategic position, I am willing to pull the trigger if your standards are well impacted and your voters are clearly articulated. Through out the round I default to competing interps, however you can totally change my opinion of this.

Case debate- I am willing to pull the trigger on most case turns if they are painted as the biggest impact in the round, solvency take outs are decent, impact defense will be enough to not evaluate the advantage but probably not enough to warrant a ballot in your favor. I feel guilty voting on presumption but will still do it.

Fiat- Is something that I don't necessarily like as an answer to certain arguments, if challenged you will have to prove that fiat is legit and you should be allowed to have it.

Kritiks- I am always willing to pull the trigger on Ks I have always been comfortable doing so, that being said if you have a paired framework it makes weighing the kritik alot easier and makes me more comfortable doing so if their is a clear articulation of why the certain mindset should be rejected. paired with a framework that shows that certain criticism is the only thing that matters you will get very far with the k debate in front of me, Arguments I enjoy lit from are Nietzsche, Baudrillard, Batallie, and I'm familiar with most Fem and deep ecology literature but never be afraid to run a new or obscure Kritik I'm always looking forward to hearing these types of arguments. Make sure that your alternative is well explained and what the world of the alt looks like as opposed to the world of the aff. However don't take this as a "I will vote on the k out of the 1nc" I would prefer a fantastic CP DA debate, as opposed to a sloppy K debate, Remember you do you and what you are best at.

Framework- These arguments will go far with me I default policy making until a secondary framework is presented in the round after that both teams will have to prove through standards and evidence why their framework is best for debate.

DAs, Make sure your link scenario and uniqueness are clearly explained, and you have plenty of impact calc on your DAs, I'm totally comfortable with PTX scenarios and Any other type of disad as long as it is applicable to the affirmative case.

CPS- I am comfortable with all types of counter plans, Read Pics Read consults Read agency I really don't care about what type it is, I enjoy counter plan debate especially with a good clear analysis on net benefits and reasons why the affirmative cant solve as well as the counter plan, I really enjoy specific counter plans that have been cut out of the aff solvency.

Performance/Identity debate- I have only heard one of these this year, I find them really engaging and very creative. The idea of injecting yourself and your significant social issues into an affirmative case is really incredible, that being said please feel free to run these. However make sure I have a clear articulation on the FW flow why your aff is good for debate, inclusive to all, or is a better alternative in the end to policy making.

Things I would like to see- good link analysis. Impact calc, Explanations of alternatives or cps. Direct clash with your opponents positions, Line by Line work. Inspirational notes- I have noticed recently that a lot of teams have given up on the round or quit debating because they have been faced with an argument that they don't know how to answer. Keep in mind three things. 1- Their are multiple ways to win a debate, but you will never know unless you try. use cross ex and question them about their arguments. And never feel like you are behind. Debate is all about the judges opinion you may be winning in their eyes. 2- Debate is educational and fun, don't let a hard debate discourage you just read up on the lit and do better the next time. 3- Debate is very rewarding and enjoyable, Don't let a rude opponent "horrible judge" or squirrelly argument ruin that for you always have fun.

Good disclosure practices go far with me and could even serve you well in the round, I came from a school who's coach thought it was strategic to keep the community in the dark and not fill out the caselist wiki. This is wrong and something I do not approve of the open caselist wiki solves multiple offenses for me and increases research and challenge of the activity. Its very good for the community.

Side note and reward for reading this philosophy through all the way, I personally think that Orcas or "Killer Whales" are the most majestic creatures in the entire cosmos. if you can fit in that reference you will be rewarded with .5 extra speaker points for excellent judge adaption and preparation.