Position: Hired Judge for the Big Green Tournaments Judged This Year: 2

This is only the third tournament I’ve judged on this topic, so please assume that I am ignorant when it comes to acronyms, abbreviations, terms of art, etc. But I’d like to think I’m not a dolt, so there’s no need to be patronizing. In general, I view my role as a judge as choosing the best policy between the options presented. However, prior to evaluating competing policies, I will usually resolve theoretical issues first.

Any degree of speed is fine, but incomprehensibility will at the very least kill your points, and at the most cause me to completely ignore the argument by not flowing it. I will give several warnings when a debater is being incomprehensible. Fast, persuasive, clear, civil, and funny are all characteristics that will result in higher speaker points.

Evidence is important to me when making a decision, and I will read as much as I believe is necessary to make a good decision. I will only read the parts of cards that were actually read in the round and it is the responsibility of the debaters to clearly mark what they have read in their evidence. At a minimum, source and date should be read, quals are a plus. "FDCH Congressional Testimony," "BBC," and "Federal New Service" are not sources.

I’ll flow cross-ex for clarification purposes. Tag-team cross-ex is fine.

I’ll listen to most theory arguments, but I do have predispositions. I tend to be predisposed to the affirmative on T and the legitimacy of new cases at the NDT. I tend to be predisposed to side with the negative on the legitimacy of topical, conditional, int’l fiat, and/or exclusionary counterplans and the illegitimacy of sever or intrinsicness permutations. Competition is often a sufficient check against abusive counterplans. I can be sympathetic to the abusive nature of running multiple conditional counterplans. If the aff wins that conditionality is or exclusionary counterplans are bad, it is also their responsibility to impact these arguments (is it a voting issue, or does the counterplan just go away, leaving the neg to defend the status quo?).

More on counterplans because I realize that they are a major negative strategy on this topic. I’m inclined to believe that if the counterplan solves 100% of the case, and there are no turns to the net benefit, then the counterplan is competitive because there is at least some risk of the net benefit. Similarly, better solvency is often a sufficient net benefit. It is the aff’s responsibility to impact theory arguments and permutations (i.e. can they be advocated? are they just a test of competitiveness? if the aff wins the perm, does the counterplan fall from the round?). The full text of permutations should also be made available to the neg upon request. It is the responsibility of both teams to compare all the different options at the end of the round (plan v. CP, perm v. CP, plan v. SQ, etc.). I am not a big fan of artificially competitive CP’s (i.e. delay, veto, exec. order, steal the funding). The legitimacy of consultation CP’s is open to debate.

I have not voted on T often, but this does not mean I will not vote on it. I guess that I’m sympathetic to old school answers like "no abuse" and "no potential for abuse." I will say that too often the affirmative fails to go on the offensive against T. This does not mean making a bunch of RVI’s, but it does mean offering a compelling counterinterpretation. In deciding which interpretation to accept, fairness is the overriding concern.

I do not like critiques. The only time I can remember voting for one was when the aff dropped it or was absolutely atrocious debating it, and even then I felt dirty.

Finally, please enjoy yourselves. I realize that for many of you this is the last tournament of your careers and you are feeling very stressed. I will do my best to make the best decision—all I ask in return is for you to be nice (this includes to your opponents). By the way, in case you were debating last weekend, nuclear war is always bad.

Back