Campbell,+Wayne

Judge's Name: Wayne Campbell High School Graduation Date: 2014 Judge's e-mail: waynec59@yahoo.com Experience: - High School debater - College debater - Occasionally Judge Rounds Judged this topic: 10 Judge Paradigm: Tabula Rasa Rate of Delivery: 5 Fast Quantity of Arguments: 4 Relatively many Topicality: 1 Vote on it often Counterplans: 1 acceptable Generic Disadvantages: 1 acceptable Conditional Negative Positions: 2 usually acceptable Debate Theory Arguments: 1 acceptable Kritik arguments: 1 acceptable Overall judging paradigm: Background: -Debated one year for Petoskey High School -Currently a freshman debater for Michigan State University

Overview: -Tabula rasa -Tech over truth -Debate what you debate best -Don’t over-adapt to me as a judge. I’ll listen to anything that is presented into the round. That said, being a human I retain inherent biases and preferences, which are listed below.

Preferences: -I default to voting for the best policy unless you tell me otherwise. -I like case debates, and I am inclined to vote on presumption to incentivize case debates, though offense is still very important.

Topicality: -Evaluated like any other debate -You can win topicality on neg vs. an aff I think is topical, or visa versa -T is subject to the same process of technical contestation as any other debate, and, unless you win “reasonability”, I won’t vote on whether or not I believe the aff is topical, and will default to the impacts present in the round.

Theory: -Evaluated like any other debate. That said, it’s easier for the aff to win “condo bad” if the neg runs two conditional counterplans than one.

Kritiks: -I’m not the best judge for K’s, but I’m not the worst either. I am familiar in some schools of philosophy, but less well-versed in others. In either case, I am not likely to vote on something that I don’t understand, worse yet that nobody in the round understands. -Nothing is morally reprehensible/bankrupt unless debaters win that it is. -I do tend to give a lot of weight to claims that running a K and not engaging the aff is bad because it ignores 8 minutes of offense in the 1AC.

Politics: -I like it, but I think I give the neg a higher burden of proof than most judges

Speed: -It’s good -I will try to flow to the best of my ability regardless of how clear you are -Needless to say clarity is in your best interests - I default to not shouting out “clear” unless you want me to as I try to limit judge intervention -Distinguish between tags and bodies of evidence, please.

Paperless: -I’m tolerant- flashing or emailing is not prep -I reserve the right to take prep/dock speaks for prep-stealing

Speaker points: -Dependent mostly on how much each speaker contributes to the team’s probability of winning -But, ethos is a factor too Ethics Statement: Agree