Husic,+Douglas

Submitted on Sunday, December 7, 2014 - 9:42pm Submitted by anonymous user: [76.112.162.32] Submitted values are:

Judge's Name: Douglas Husic High School Graduation Date: 2014 Judge's e-mail: DouglasAHusic@gmail.com Experience: - Coach a team - College debater - Frequently Judge Rounds Judged this topic: 40 Judge Paradigm: Tabula Rasa Rate of Delivery: 5 Fast Quantity of Arguments: 3 A moderate number Topicality: 3 Moderately Counterplans: 1 acceptable Generic Disadvantages: 1 acceptable Conditional Negative Positions: 1 acceptable Debate Theory Arguments: 1 acceptable Kritik arguments: 1 acceptable Overall judging paradigm: Debated for three years at West Bloomfield High School currently debating at Wayne State University in Michigan.

This is my first year out of high school so I'm not really fully set on my preferences for some arguments as a judge. So if you have a question that I don't specifically address in here please ask before the round if you're confused.

the Tldr of my philosophy is; you do you.

Argument preferences: Clash of civ debates: In high school due to my school's policy on affs, i always read a topical policy affirmative, however i'm immensely interested and involved in critical literature. I believe the affirmative should have some tie to the topic --- so try your best to be about oceans --- anti resolutional affs can also work just need a really good defense of why they shouldn't engage the topic in anyway. Neg teams reading framework can definitely win my ballot, winning a T version of the aff is generally a under utilized tool i've found especially in high school debate.

Kritiks: I like them a lot, explanation is encouraged over a 2nc or 1nr which just reads cards --- draw specific links to the affirmative and you'll be in a very good place.

Counterplans: also like em, plan specific pics tend to be my favorite. If the CP has the ability to result in the entirety of the aff it is probably abusive.

DAs: read them, more specific the better.

Topicality: Reasonability is a very convincing framing of topicality debates for me. Explanation of links and impacts to your standards are generally just a much better way to win T- Debates in front of me.

Theory: 2 conditional advocacies are generally good more then that and there is definitely a debate to be had. CPs that result in the entirety of the aff are probably abusive but need a good warrant for rejecting the team and not the arg.

Meta Issues: Clarity over speed: I'd like to hear the difference between tags and evidence, generally don't have a problem with speed.

Be funny: Jokes are the best makes me enjoy judging more, generally good jokes will be rewarded with speaker points.

Dont be rude: confidence is fine but blatantly being rude to your opponents is something i'm not a fan of (rage politics is not rude though)

Gendered language: please try your best to just say Y'all probably not the biggest deal in the world but it's something that is important to me.

Flashing: prep ends when the flash drive leves the computer --- dont take to long it becomes annoying really fast when there is dead time --- also if i catch you stealing prep i'll just estimate how much i thought you used and remove it from the time you have left.

Clipping: I try my best to record every round and if there is an accusation of clipping I will ask the accusing team if they are willing to stake the round on this claim and if so I will review my copy of the round and if I discover the team accused was indeed clipping they will get zeros for their speaker points and a loss. the other team will get my average speaker points for that tournament. Ethics Statement: Agree