Bo Slade ParadigmLast changed 11/17 7:41A PDT
Unfortunately, I have heard that the link below does not work, that's unfortunate, I will try my best to summarize my judge philosophy.
First, it's been a while since I judged so please be slow and clear. Try to avoid heavy jargon in regards to discussion of the topic.
As a background of me: I debated three years for Loyola in LD, qual'ed to TOC. Then debated one year of college policy at Indiana University.
I will vote on anything so long as two conditions are met: 1) I understand the argument. If the argument being made is too confusing for even me to understand, it is likely that you are not explaining the argument well enough or you are trying to intentionally confuse your opponent, I am a fan of neither. 2) The argument has a warrant. Saying "our world is a simulation, vote neg to reject" isn't a warrant, it's a tagline. Saying "our world is a simulation because xyz, and voting neg implies a rejection of the assumptions embedded in the AC."
I have no problem with any form or style of argument so long as it meets those conditions above. So all your theory args, K's, CP's, 'wacky' AC's and DA's are fair game. (Yes, I will vote on disclosure theory)
Things that I like/will get you high speaks:
-You run a K and you do it well (seriously, I mean like really well)
-If you run a race K without a Wilderson/antiblackness alt
-You engage in a good LARP debate
-A lot of 1AR efficiency and prep
Things I don't like/will get you low speaks:
-Entirely frivolous theory (for example, the neg must specify the status of the CP/alt in their NC)
-Personal insults & racist/sexist/generally offensive comments
-NC's that do nothing to engage with the 1AC