Amey,+Taylor


 * Conflicts: Bettendorf, Barrington **


 * UPDATE for 2015 Bronx: Its been a while and my thoughts on certain arguments have changed, so please please please run through this paradigm again before you pref me. For those who don't know me and have heard from others: No, I'm not a theory or skep hack even though I ran those arguments a lot. **

I am a sophomore at George Washington University, studying political science and communication. I attended Bettendorf High School in Iowa and debated LD for four years, qualifying to the TOC my senior year in 2014. I broke at several bid tournaments including Bronx, Crestian, Sunvite, Yale, Iowa Caucus, and Dowling.

Short version: Do anything that you want. Speed is fine with me; however, please be clear (I will yell clear or slow down, if necessary). Any sort of framework I will listen to and vote on. Tricks are fine. Theory is fine, but please make sure that there is actual abuse instead of frivolous BS. Critical arguments need to be explained really well to me in order for me to competently know what I am voting on before I sign my ballot for you. Most importantly, have fun! This is what debate is all about!

Here's the long version:

General: When I walk into a round as a judge, I like to come in //tabula rasa//, but I see debate as an open-ended game. I am open to any argument (with a few obvious exceptions like racism, homophobia, etc.) and am willing to vote on any argument as long as the debater wins such argument. I will try my best to not intervene, as that is the last resort thing that I want to do when making a decision. I believe my role as a judge is to vote for the better debater who upheld their framework and has generated pieces of offense back to that framework. If you re-contextualize what my role as a judge is, I am happy to shift my role for that round. **__PLEASE WEIGH.__** This will help me so much when I am trying to decide which arguments I have to evaluate first otherwise I will likely choose which arguments to evaluate in an arbitrary way. Please also take at least some time to tell me what arguments I need to vote on and why you are winning these arguments otherwise I will be staring at my flow trying to figure out what to do after the 2AR.

Speed: Speed isn’t an issue with me as long as you are clear enough so that I can understand you. I will yell clear if I need to, but please know the more I yell clear, the more your speaks will go down. When you start reading in the beginning of your speech, don’t start at full speed (probably start at around 85%).

Theory: I ran theory a good amount in my days as a debater. I really enjoy good theory debates as a judge and I think it can be easily executed as a strategic ploy against your opponent when done well. However, I do not like the so-called “fishing” of violations during CX as well as the unnecessary running of frivolous theory on a random person who has less experience. If you do run frivolous theory, I will be giving your opponent a lower threshold in responding to arguments within the shells. I default to a competing interpretations paradigm and assume that I drop the argument although I am absolutely open to evaluate theory however you tell me to do so. I am very receptive to RVIs, especially for the aff because of the 1AR time sk(r)ew. I do, however, believe that you need offense under a counter-interpretation as well as an RVI in order for me to vote for you when responding to theory.

Speaks: I usually start around a 28 and move my way up or down from there. I will disclose speaks if asked after the RFD. If you say anything that I perceive as racist, homophobic, sexist, etc., you will receive a L20 and I will probably get into contact with your coach about what you said.

Any other specific arguments you have questions about and how I evaluate them, please feel free to ask before the round!

There are three things that really irritate me. First is that if I know you on some level, don’t make it awkward by talking to me when we’re in the room in front of your opponent. It just makes me uncomfortable and will probably grow suspicion even though I won’t have any intention to hack for you. Second is when one debater makes the debate environment hostile in the room by acting rude towards the opponent. I will tank your speaks if you do so. Third is if you disagree with my decision and interrogate me with a poor attitude. I understand you may be upset since I have been in the same situation a few times. I am happy to explain why I voted one way, but do not make it a shouting match. So please, put away your charcoal and patties for another judge. There's a difference between trying to understand and interrogating a judge. If we have to move out of the room due to the advancement of the tournament, I am more than willing to sit down with you somewhere and try to get you to understand why I didn't vote for you.

__** If you have any more questions before the round, feel free to ask me! **__