Palmbach,+Andrew

I'll try to keep this succinct. Apologies if it seems like at times I'm insulting your intelligence - I am growing bitter in my old age, after all.

Experience: 3 years high school debate (culminating in one and a half or so years of varsity debate), and 2 years judging (this year is my second). I've judged in most every Wisconsin debate tournament this year so far, and most last year. Out-of-state experience is pretty limited - the only such tournament I've judged at is Glenbrooks last year.

Restrictions: Appleton East

Paradigm: I fancy myself a Tabula Rasa judge insofar as I'll listen to most any argument and I rather frown upon putting constraints upon your speeches; this is your competitive activity, after all, and I say this as a request that you run what you think are your best argumentative positions. That said, don't take that as a license to get away with sloppy argumentation. As for speed, I'm going to paraphrase a quote from a really good Wisco policy judge- speed is a tactic, nothing more. Don't expect me to pull through minute blippy details from the 1NC to the 2NR (or from the 2AC to the 1AR) every time, unless you ask me to look at a card after the round (though often I'll ask to look at a card or a few after the round if it's a big point of contention in the round). This is especially true for T violations, Ks and other theory arguments.

T Violations- They're fine, but if you really want me to vote on it you should make it a central part of your strategy all the way through.

DA- Try to keep em plausible, I <3 really fundamental things like specific links and thorough well-warranted internal link stories. Same goes for advantages

CP- They're fine. I might even look favorably upon you if you have the courage to run one unconditionally. Even more so if you go for it and a K and your K doesn't bite it.

K- I am really close to saying to I won't listen to Ks, but I continue to allow them out of the glimmer of hope it affords me that I'll hear reasoned academic discussion about deep philosophical issues. Too often I think high school K arguments are essentially debate coaches blocking out their pet philosophies and using their students as proxies for their ideological quibbles; the reason why I say that is often students don't seem to fully grasp the philosophical content of their K and how it functions as a reason to vote down the Affs. I am of the conviction that students should read a book or five about the philosophy they advocate before they run a K about it. I don't think most Ks this year are really competitive with most Aff plans at all, and if you're going to want to win on a K you're going to want to show me why it is. Many a K debate I've heard this year are just terrible for debate; usually it's just that the Neg runs some block about how despair is a fundamental part of human nature or how men are evil and we need to reject the normative framework from the 1AC and then the Aff horrifically mishandles it so then the Neg just blows it up in the block and I'm lamenting the fact that I'll have to "send a message to the Tab room" that isn't "a pox upon both your houses" and a double loss. If this sounds intimidating to you and you're doubting that I'll fall in love with your K, feel free to send me to the bottom of your judge preferences list. If you think you've got what it takes... challenge accepted.

New arguments in the 2NC - are stupid. Please use the time advantage granted to you in the block to extend the arguments you made in the 1NC to the point where the 1AR gets a panic attack.

Please extend your plan text all the way through the round. Also please read your solvency cards (which should be OMG AWESOME with strong warrants if you want me to vote for you) in the 1AC. Again, pretty fundamental stuff but I've seen people not do this.

Any other questions? Just ask

Cheers, Palmbach