Mark Cassell ParadigmLast changed 12/2 9:25P PDT
Competed in high-school in 2000s
Almost no Debate experience since then. No Judging or Coaching. Familiarity with resolution comes from profession.
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.
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.
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
|Saint Georges Invitational||1544225400 12/7/2018||OPol||1 R1||St George's CR||Gonzaga Prep RB||Aff|