Wurm,+Alex

I debated for Byram Hills High School in NY and graduated in 2016; I attended TOC my senior year. Currently, I am studying Engineering at Cornell University.

[Update for Newark Jan 6/7 2017] I haven't judged a round since working at NSD this past summer, so please read slowly until I seem accustomed to your spreading voice (like 70% speed).

__**Overview (Short Version):**__ As a debater, I read pretty much every type of argument (i.e. I would read a questionably topical K aff one round, and trivialism with tons of spikes the next round). Because I didn't really have a specific style of debate, I am open to hearing whatever you want to read, as long as you explain it well. Here are a list of preferences I have when judging: 1) If your opponent asks you to disclose, please disclose (within reason). And obviously if you ask someone to disclose, be prepared to reciprocate. 2) Slow down on tags and author names, as well as for transitions between individual arguments in a long numbered list. If I miss something and have no idea what you are referring back to in a later speech, I'm not going to spend the time figuring out which arguments you were trying to interact. 3) Be respectful, both to your opponent and to anyone else who may be watching the debate. Debate is competitive, but it can also be fun, and high tensions in a debate round ruin the experience for everyone. That said, if you are loud/aggressive when you debate, I will not fault you for being perceptually dominant as long as the other debater does not feel antagonized. ---

For all of the following types of debate, I am likely familiar with some, but not all of the arguments that you read. If you want to ask me whether I am familiar with a specific ethical theory or critical position, feel free to find me before round. Obviously you should try to adapt to your judges, but at the end of the day you should read what you enjoy the most and feel you can defend well.
 * __Long Version:__**

Make sure you very clearly explain how your framework interacts with your opponent's framework, any sort of preclusionary arguments should be well-warranted otherwise I won't feel comfortable voting on them. Also, if your cards are full of jargon I don't understand, please clarify in the tags, or just summarize after each argument. You should also provide an explanation for how your arguments link back to your framework and/or how your framework excludes your opponents arguments; if I don't know how to weigh under your framework, I won't.
 * __Framework Debates:__**

Finally, unless otherwise specified, I will evaluate the debate entirely under the framework I believe is better argued; however, if you want me to evaluate the round through an epistemically modest approach, you should still do weighing under each framework (i.e. if you have a util extinction scenario, and your opponent has some violation of human rights under a different framework, explicitly tell me why one impact is bigger than the other, under their respective frameworks).

__**K Debates:**__ I enjoy a good K debate, but will probably be disappointed if you seem to know very little about your position and don't interact it well with the resolution/your opponent's arguments. Make your role of the ballot clear (I should be able to read the exact text back to you after your speech), and do weighing between competing ROBs/frameworks.

If you are reading a critical aff, I would appreciate some semblance of a link to the resolution. Completely non-topical affs are fine, but I will probably be receptive to topicality arguments against them (if you believe you can defend your position well, this should not worry you).

If your opponent is reading a critical argument, you should engage in their argument. Even if your go-to response is theory/T, I would like to see some ink on the case itself. Excluding the discussion of these positions is counter-productive and I may dock your speaks.

__**Theory Debates:**__ I am happy to evaluate a T interp with an interesting definition or a theory shell with a nuanced interpretation; I am a bit less happy to evaluate the stock theory shells you pull from your backfiles. In other words, I will enjoy your debate if I believe you have a legitimate abuse story and are making the correct arguments, and I will be bored if I hear the same frivolous theory shell I have heard a million times before (unless you think you have a really persuasive justification for it, then by all means read it).

You probably shouldn't read theory against debaters who are unfamiliar with it, and if you do I will dock your speaks.

Make sure you do clear weighing between standards and voters, because I am not going to pick which one I thinks //seems// the most important at the end of the round.

Also, if your typical round ends up having 5-6 shells with a ton of meta-theory and paragraph theory, I might be in the mood to evaluate these rounds every once in a while, but typically I'm not the judge you will want to pref.

__**LARP:**__ I think these debates can be really interesting, and if you have a plan or counter-plan that is pretty unique and well-researched I might be tempted to boost your speaks. Weighing is the key here, and not just doing weighing, but doing it well. If I have two competing "out-weighing" claims that are both unanswered, I will pick the argument that I find more persuasive.

__**Tricks:**__ Go for it, if they are clever tricks (i.e. arguments based on the wording of the resolution, or a well-warranted argument that has new implications in another speech that aren't too out-of-the-box), and not just a bunch of silly blips you are hoping someone drops.

Evidence Ethics– I will call for cards after the round if I need, but this issue can mostly be resolved in-round Card-clipping– look at Ben Koh's paradigm, I will probably take the same approach Speaks– look at Paul Zhou's paradigm, I like that system and will probably try to follow it
 * __Miscellaneous:__**

If you want more of an idea of how I will evaluate the round, Ben Koh, Chris Kymn and Carolyn Lau are probably the judges I will be most similar to.


 * Note: I will try to update this paradigm with more specific information and opinions on different issues over time and as I see other judges' paradigms; if you have any questions that aren't answered here, feel free to ask me before the round.**

**MOST IMPORTANT PART OF MY PARADIGM:**

My goal when judging is, of course, to foster the best debate environment possible and objectively pick a winner; however, I am also trying to avoid boredom. Here are some ways to [potentially] increase speaker points (ask me if these apply before the round, because I may or may not be in the mood for certain things on this list):

1) Bring me snacks/water, I enjoy food and this will make me happy. 2) Crack a funny joke in your speech or during CX (but don't make it seem out of place; if it is forced I may lower speaks instead) 3) Do something dramatic, like drop a textbook or something else loud when you make a big point (perform in some way) 4) If you pull out a book or document relevant to the round and prove an opponent's argument wrong, I will raise your speaks by 0.3 5) If you can balance on one leg for all of both CXs, I will raise your speaks by 0.2 6) If you make effective use of a video clip/sound effect to make a joke or sound badass, I will raise your speaks by 0.3 7) The song "Rap God" by Eminem is 6 minutes and 3 seconds long. If you can read your AC to the beat of this song, and do it well, you will automatically get a 30