Melton,+William

Hi, my name is William Melton. I have experience judging policy debate, as I have judged on both the local and National Circut. I am an adjunct professor at several community colleges and understand most arguments, both traditional and Kritikal. Please read the exceptions because while I try to be impartial, for reasons outlined below I rarely vote for certain arguments. I prefer debaters who are authentic in their arguments, have good form and enjoy the round. I make my decisions based on the quality of the arguments that are presented. This means that I do not mind you reading a lot of cards as long as you impact them and prove to me why you should win the debate round. If you spread unintelligibly, I will say clear. I can not vote for unintelligible arguments.  Traditional AFF: I'm good with this form of debating, and i'll understand your arguments. Please extend your arguments effectively through the debate round\ and it will be a good round.  K aff: I do not prefer this type of debate unless it is well explained. I will vote for your aff as long as my flow shows that you are winning the debate round. Also remember to persuade me and impact your argument. Be clear why you want me to vote for you. Just uttering the words “role of the ballot” is not sufficient---why should the role of the ballot be what you have suggested it to be? Affs should also argue why the aff is sufficiently debatable (negs should argue to the contrary), not merely why the aff is important to discuss.  T ---T is a question of should the aff be topical. If you aren't reading cards on T, then you're doing it wrong. I will vote on it if you do a good job on it, do not expect me to vote on T, if it's clear that you are using topicality to waste time, you lose on T. If you run T, make sure you also have a topical version of the affirmative.  Theory: Convince me. I will vote to reject an argument over a team. If this argument is not made, I'll defer to the other team's interp on what I should do with the suspect arg (ie, reject the team).  CP/DA's: I like counter plans and clear disad debates and will be persuaded by convincing arguments. Just make sure that it is competitive with the Affirmative and that you do prove to me why I should vote on it. This also applies to the affirmative team, persuade me as to why your affirmative is better.  K: I will vote on K it it is clearly explained. I prefer to be convinced by the team running the K. Any kritik you read must be persuasive, not just power tagging. I encourage underviews for the cards and overviews in the block to straighten out the debate. Any argument on a kritik that is not explained will not be preferred over a well explained argument, as policy is not tagline debate. Make sure that you do impact calculus so that I can know whether to prefer the impacts of the aff or the K first. Explain the framework and why your K's impacts come before the Affs. Also make sure that the Alternative and Links are explained throughout the debate round, this makes the round flow smoother. I do not vote for vague alternatives, arguments should be flushed out and explained. I believe in debate that is based on an intellectual level, not one of the "you're bad"/"Truth isn't real" debates. This does not mean that I won't vote for high level arguments, but I prefer more the well explained thoughtful intellectual discussions. Make sure to include me on the email chain: Wmelton@portofsandiego.org. Any arguments you make need to be on the email chain, including analytics. Otherwise, those arguments will not be considered.