Mark Cassell Paradigm

Last changed 12/2 9:25P PDT

Background:
Competed in high-school in 2000s

Almost no Debate experience since then. No Judging or Coaching. Familiarity with resolution comes from profession.

Profession-Lawyer

Philosophy:
I believe debate should be a fun and intellectually stimulating endeavor. I am open to all types of arguments. I lean more toward viewing through a policy-maker / games-player lens.

I want to understand your argument, so please, be clear and concise. Maybe by day 2, I will be able to sit through a total spreading round.

Evidence: I want to see solid evidence, and will listen to arguments that include evidence comparisons.

That being said about evidence, I will flow the round and try and follow the overall arguments to determine what arguments were dropped or answered. I shouldn't have to guess at the end of the round why you believe you have won the debate, you should tell me.

Topicality

These are not my favorite types of arguments, but I feel that non-topical affs have issues winning rounds. I will vote on topicality. I hope either team will clearly explain their links to impacts.

Disads and CPS

Go for it! I want to see the effect of a well researched disad or CP.

Kritiks

If you are going to run a K, you must be ready to go full boar. I am not interested in quick overview Ks that do not explain a story. I am not up to date on any of the recent Ks, and I do not have a strong philosophical background. I hope to see arguments supported with evidence cards, and not just theory spewing, or attempting to overwhelm the other team with the card banked Ks and the recycled buzzwords/authors.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Saint Georges Invitational 12/7/2018 OPol R1 St George's CR Gonzaga Prep RB Aff