Philip George Paradigm
You’re better off doing what you’re good at.
I judge rounds by the flow first and only after that will I look at cards. If I call for too many cards your probably didn't do your job as a debater.
Comparison – When both sides make good comparisons between evidence and arguments the debate becomes really good. Good debaters should discuss the warrants of cards, have impact comparisons, discuss dates (especially in a politics debate), and author qualifications. If you do these things your speaks will be good and you probably will win the round.
Topicality-Go for it. I really consider the interpretation and reasonable limits debate. Make sure to weigh your standards such as does education matter more than fairness?
Theory- I’ll vote for it, but please don’t read something like multiple perms or k’s bad. Instead, spend your time answering the argument. I don’t like intrinsic and severance perms. I will never vote for your consult cp or timeframe fiat arguments. Condo and Agent CP’s are fine. I would much rather reject the argument and not the team.
Framework- I’ll vote for it, but if you are a aff and say I should vote down a k I'm probably not going to listen to you. Honestly just weigh your aff.
CP’s- go for it as long as it isn’t a Consult CP
DA- explain the link and do impact comparison
Critique- Go for it. I would actually prefer to watch a good critique debate than a policy debate. I would prefer to have a role of the ballot. Explain the link. I don’t care if you don’t have an alt. like just about every critique except for Bauldrillard. Make sure to apply the k to the aff, don't be generic. I love it when someone takes a sentence from the aff and says this is what we criticize and why we criticize it.
Case- I love a good case debate.
If you have any other questions just ask me.