Banks,+Marquieze

My name is Marquieze Banks a little background info about me. I debated for four years at Kansas City Central High School. I qualified to the T.O.C. both my Junior and Senior year but couldn’t attend because of Missouri State Rules. Now on to talking about how I judge.
 * Judging Philosophy **
 * First about Paperless Debate** everybody's learning, let’s just try to be quick and courteous about it. If it takes to long I will take prep time.
 * DAs**: Tell me which to evaluate first the Uniqueness or the Link. Disad turns the case is damning when it’s not answered (or if it is true). Impact calculus is necessary to assure that I evaluate the DA in the same way you think it should be.
 * Theory**: I am very hesitant to vote on “cheap shots”. My default is that theory arguments are a reason to reject the argument, this is not a reason you shouldn’t go for theory its just a reason why you will have to explain warrants as to why this is not true. I’m a surprisingly negative leaning on theory questions. Theory arguments are not immune from my larger criteria for arguments (claim, warrant, impact)
 * Framework**: I don’t really feel framework is a voting issue, it just dictates how I evaluate the round. This is why topicality arguments are essential to win framework arguments on the negative. Be explicit about your framework on the affirmative and the negative. I’m not convinced that policy options are necessary to solve predictability etc, you will have to overcome this burden with a warrant in front of me
 * Counterplans**: I think counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive. I am sometimes persuaded that purely functional competition (normal means/process counterplans) should probably not be evaluated. If you’re aff and theory-savvy, don’t be afraid to go for theoretical reasons the process cp goes away.
 * K Aff:** T > Framework. Given that most impact turns to T come from pedagogical reasons, you need to prove that your interpretation provides space for the ‘good education’ the aff thinks is key to stop genocide/war/racism/turkeys. Topical version of your aff is compelling, as well as giving other examples of topical action that prove the aff could have accepted the parameters of the resolution and gained the same educational benefits. Then it’s just a matter of proving that competitively the K aff hurts the neg. Also, prove how your competitive equity impacts implicate their education impacts.
 * Little things you need to know**:
 * Offense wins debates, but that does not mean you will lose if you only have defense, you just have to make something (IE your case impact) offense against the arguments they are winning.
 * Please take CX serious it could affect your speaker Points
 * Begin a jerk in-front of me want get you any-were.
 * Don’t steal prep time
 * Please don’t clip cards it’s cheating
 * I try very hard to reward the team that did the better debating. Please have fun and enjoy yourselves.**