Casey Anderson ParadigmLast changed 2/18 9:20P EST
I have judged lots of DC-area tournaments and about half a dozen national circuit tournaments over the past two years after more than two decades away from competitive debate.
Here's what I would want to know about me if I were you:
1. I am open to - and have voted for - just about every kind of strategy, even though my default position is still that affs should defend a topical proposal for action. If you don't read a plan you need to explain the role of the ballot.
2. My assumption (in the absence of argument to the contrary) is that the neg has to defend whatever they do or advocate as functionally competitive/net beneficial. This means that answering a permutation by just saying, "severs their reps" and moving on is not going to be very persuasive to me.
3. I presume that debate is an educational game and that competitive fairness is an impact unless someone suggests an alternative way of looking at what we're doing.
4. You need to be able to explain and defend the claims and warrants in your evidence. If the other team points out that your evidence does not actually say what you represent it as saying, I am willing to assign the argument zero weight/probability.
5. The electronic exchange of speech files is not an excuse for being incomprehensible. I also appreciate it when arguments and cards have short, clear labels.
6. Please be nice (or at least polite) to each other. I don't like watching debates where debaters are cocky, condescending, or rude, and I will punish this kind of behavior harshly via speaker points.