Marshall,+Grace

I am a college debater at Hobart and William Smith Colleges with four years of high school policy debate at Petoskey High School.

Short Version of my paradigm: I will do my best, like most judges, to adjudicate based on the arguments presented in the round and the framework you wish me to evaluate them with. I generally prefer intelligent arguments (understood by the people arguing for them) to joke arguments and generic material. That being said, I'll generally vote for anything regardless of my actual opinion on the subject matter as long as it's argued well.

Long Version:

Topicality: - I'll evaluate it like any argument with competing offense and defense. - I lean aff on reasonability. It is easy to persuade me even if you might not meet their interpretation that centering a debate around minor definitional issues is worse. -That should not prevent negs from running T. Limits and education are some of my favorite arguments on T. If the aff is clearly not topical, then run T. Just please don't run more than three or so violations except in cases of serious violations of the resolution.

Theory: - I rarely find myself moved by theory except in cases of the team running it wins it by a substantial margin. - That being said, if a team is running say, 5 CP's and 2 K's all conditionally, a condo-bad theory shell would be more convincing than if a team ran 1 conditional argument.

Kritiks: - I am not the best person to judge K's. I'm not terrible, I just have little experience judging them. - Don't run them for the sake of running them. A good link story will go a long way. - Originality is appreciated but if you don't understand the K yourself, don't expect me to. - There are some great K's out there so run the ones that best fit the aff you are running them against.

Kritikal affirmatives: - I have debated against a few K affs however my experience judging these is non-existent. If you MUST run them, you might have to work a bit harder at justifying its inclusion in the debate round. - Articulate your points well and I'll judge accordingly.

Counter-plans: - I liked running these in high school and welcomed them run against me. CP's are a great way to test the merits of the plan and benefit both sides. - The more specific the better. A good solvency scenario generally makes for a debate with good clash on both sides. - I typically find condo unconvincing unless the volume of CP's run is excessive. - In round abuse claims are infinitesimally better than potential abuse claims.

Disadvantages: - The more specific the DA/link, the more convincing I find the arguments. - If you wish to argue that it outweighs or turns the case, please explain why. - I will give the neg a higher burden than most judges when it comes to any PTX DAs. Other than that one, I love DAs and find them important to debate rounds.

Cross-examination: - Please don't scream at your opponent during CX (or really at all in the round.) Be nice to your opponents. - Yes I'm listening during CX and I will most likely hold you accountable for what you say.

Speed: - I am fine with it as long as you are saying words and not a string of phonics. (Speak quickly but clearly) - I will flow as well as I can, but if I miss it, I won't judge it later. - Distinguish your tags and cites from the body of your evidence.

Paperless: - Flashing is not prep until I get annoyed with what appears to be basically prep-stealing. - I prefer flashing to email chains as internet connections can be spotty. - If your computer breaks, too bad. You took the risk by bringing it. - You must provide a viewing screen to paper teams.

Misc. - Ethos is important but should be used occasionally. - Impact calc can make or break a round. - Line by line is great if you can - Don't forget to extend your arguments, I won't do the work for you. - Cap Ks are less convincing coming from paperless teams (so are Anthro Ks)

If I missed anything or if you have specific questions, ask away!