If you are reading this it probably means you are about to have me as a judge. I will attempt to be a flow judge, I have my own thoughts on debate (which are explained below) but I recognize that most tournaments and teams hire me to judge a round on the merits presented within that round and therefore teams should feel free to run positions they think justify a ballot (the decision and the RFD) I can take most speed and have coaching, college and HS debate experience.

1. If you don’t like it change it -- if you see something on this list that you think is bunk you can either a) strike me now, b) don’t run it (it being whatever you think I don’t like) in the round im about to judge or c) win it infront of me. I hate tons of positions I have voted for, moreover I have seen some rounds that have made me like certain positions I used to hate…the long and short is debate changes when people insist on doing something that most people dislike, that’s how CP’s, K’s and competiting interpretations came around.


2. People say I vote on theory and “stupid” arguments too much I don’t think its true, if you drop it and the other team goes for it there is nothing I can do but vote on the dropped position. I think I am fairly conservative as to what counts as legitimate, however most teams recognize when they are going to run a “cheap” position and are adequately prepared for a theory debate. I think I have developed a reputation for voting on theory because teams drop severance perms bad or intrinsic perms bad not because I vote against teams for running competitive strategies.

3. Put me in a paradigm If you are going for an argument it will help you to explain the role I am taking when justifying the arguments. Since the differences in perception between a national security advisor and a pothead are substantial enough to merit different decisions when presented with the same facts it may be helpful to argue which perspective I should take, this fits comfortably into most framework debates.

4. Speed and/or multiple advocacies are a strategic tool Carpet bombing an opponent’s case is a difficult way to win my ballot. A single well executed and placed PIC, SPEC or K strategy provides a depth of discussion that usually favors the team(s) I view as the better debaters. If a team can prove that a strategic tool is being abused that will probably win the theory debate

5. Make my RFD for me a good rebuttal will cover the line-by-line, a great rebuttal will fill out my RFD for me, telling me where to look and how to evaluate each argument with warrants from the round. This is normally done in an overview, however the “rant” style 2ar/2nr’s can also accomplish this (though make sure you are explicitly referencing arguments within that rant)

6 Kritiks of T/Theory that said I do vote on KoT’s and I think the best defense against them is similar to the way we debate against everything else, (no link, magnitude, timeframe, probability, out advocacy solves their offense)

7 I think debate from 1999-2005 was better than what it is today that’s probably because I debated during that time. I put this here because I like to know when people debated to know if they are comfortable with certain positions (like retro theoryBut back then
teams never dropped theory…and if they did they should/would loose the roud
Plantexts actually were more substantive – team would specify stuff, especially if asked in cross-x.
Judges would routinely void a plan due to vagueness (aka vote on SPECS)
T was about abuse, not competing interpretations or reasonability, and the internal link to abuse was limited predictable ground or links to predictable generic positions.
I sound old now…

8. If you have any questions
a. just ask, my answer would probably be that it is debatable.
b. in parli teams pause after they read the plan text and ask “any questions” --- I think this practice should be integrated into debate, especially for teams who complain about vague plans or SPECS (both sides of the spectrum really)

9.
Paperless timing
the minimum acceptable standard: I will stop preptime once the jumpdrive has left the computer, at that time it will be handed to each debater and they can jump it to the viewing computer

ideally: a team will pull out the jumpdrive and say “stop prep” then hand the jumpdrive to his or her partner and then while speaker is giving their roadmap his/her partner will have completed the jumping process.

10. Saturday/Sunday morning rounds should be slower I wont be as awake, I probably have been up cutting updates and whatnot so go easy. I will probably be more “grumpy” before 11AM than after…

11. Competitiveness and permutations are treated like synonyms, but they are not you can argue against the ability of a counterplan to compete (text/functional/procedural etc) without having to make a perm, and you can make perms to test different types of competition.