Swede,+Jake

I haven't judged a high level policy debate for 3 years - you'll probably have to slow down for me and be more explanation heavy for your positions.

I did policy debate for 4 years in high school, coached for 6 more, and debated in policy for 2 years at the U of MN. I coached for 4 years here and there.
 * __Background:__**

__**Basics:**__
 * I am open to pretty much any argument. I will and have voted for cheesy args (wipeout/cheap shots/RVI's/etc). Intentionally offensive arguments will get you a loss and a 20 (racism good, kill yourself counterplan, etc.)
 * Whether you win or not is related to how well you make your arguments (their structural validity and truth claims) and how well you use those arguments strategically
 * Your speaker points are based on how aesthetically pleasing your speeches and CX were

__**How I evaluate the round:**__

Everyone says they’re tabula rasa, turns out I think I am too. For this reason if you intend to have a framework for how I ought to adjudicate the round and you win it that’s how I’ll try to frame the round. From KBK's philo page:
 * Honestly, in most debates, I think there needs to be much more debate about debate (and by that, I do not mean theory). This should include: a discussion of what you’re winning, with contingency statements, a discussion of what the other team said or should have said and didn’t, and what factors I should use to decide which team to vote for. If you are doing these things, you are in much better shape. This means I like overviews, albeit not of the half your speech variety.

In terms of how I actually am as a judge I tend to try to be as minimalist as possible. If you don’t fully develop an argument then I’ll interpret it exactly as its extended, even if its an arg or card I’m intimately familiar with. I do my best to stick to the arguments made in round and explanation of cards, for this reason I resist calling cards as much as possible.

I generally default to a reasonability standard in close theory debates. Why? Because debates shouldn't be obscurantist litanies of psuedo-violations/standards; debate is about real issues regarding the resolution. I say "generally default to reasonabiltiy" because offense/defense debates are helpful in understanding who is winning the theory argument, but they rarely ever tell you why that flow is important to the overall debate. That being said, good offense/defense is infinitely more useful in deciding who wins the flow and in what ways. Also, I think the offense/defense vs reasonability distinction is generally a false one.

__**Specific argument types:**__

Topicality/Procedurals: I’ll hear any args. Only small stipulation is you should focus on standards enough to explain why ground/limits/whatever is adequate enough an abuse to vote on. Simply extending probably won’t do the job. Something you probably know already but also probably need to be reminded of: I, like any judge, have only human flowing capabilities. The ratio of importance to word count is at its highest in these types of arguments, as opposed to something like the the text of a politics card (where the word/importance value is relatively low). For that reason you should probably slow down and make clear exactly what youre arguing so that we're on the same page.

K’s: Back in the day my preferred neg strat in the 2NR would be the K, but that doesn’t mean that I’m any more likely to vote on it if you run it. Jargon is typically not a problem for me, but it will be for you if you rely on it rather than actually explaining your argument. A good K almost always has an attendant framework flow or framework-esque implications.

Counterplans: I vote a lot on CP's because theyre strategically useful, but that being said I don't like the theoretical underpinning of counterplans. Honestly, I think that they're cheating and don't add anything of substance to debate centered on the resolution (ex: if the community wanted to hear debates about how NATO consultation would effect foreign policy it would had been included in the resolution). But I understand its currently one of the big trends in debate and they're insanely strategic, plus I know the feeling of having a judge who won't vote on what you're best at and spend most of your time and research on. Basically, I won't fault you for running it and I'll do my best to treat it as though it were on the same level of preference for me as a K or D/A, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Counterplans are probably the one type of argument where I specifically use a more community based view on how to evaluate them as opposed to my own view (which would mean running just theory against them because you think thats what I'd like to hear just isnt going to be enough).

Performance: Performance is what it is. I’m not disinclined to vote for it, I’ve even done it a few times myself. Whoever wins the args relating to whether the performance is germaine, necessary and/or well done is usually what it comes down to me voting on. That being said this is probably my weakest area of knowledge in terms of research and actual practice; I've also never really seen any team effectively use performance good/necessary arguments to their great advantage in a round before, so it's hard for me to say how deeply I feel about this type of argument.

Analyticals: I’ve always been a fan of seeing well explained, smart and strategic analyticals. In a hypothetical of a good analytical vs a good card I’ll probably side for the card. But, the thing about debate is there are plenty of good analyticals to respond to bad cards and in that situation I wouldn’t have any problem giving the analytical more weight.

Cheap-shots: Theoretically I'm open to cheap shots, but with any argument you need to win why they matter more than any other flow and why you're winning it enough for me to vote on it. Doing all that requries more than a few blippy sentences; so while I will pull the trigger it likely will take enough work that by the 2NR/AR it wont be a cheap-shot anymore so much as a regular theory argument.

__**Other:**__

From Pete Nikolai: " Ethics. I won't make a // sua sponte // charge of clipping. I will need an audio recording in order to resolve a clipping accusation.Both debaters on a team have to agree to make an ethics charge. The ethics charge will decide the round, and there will be no other issue heard."

Out of round notes: I have a tendency to be abrasive in my RFDs. This is not because I personally dislike you or anything you said/did in the round or outside of it. I'm more focused on giving the best possible explaination for my decision than I am about what could potentially make you upset; that means I'll probably say something that is meant to be descriptive which could be taken as personally insulting. That is not my intention.

Just because I vote for a position does not mean I personally endorse it

Quotes provided by, and thanks to: KBK, Pete Nikolai