Admonius,+Alec

Judge's Name: Admonius, Alec High School Graduation Date: 2013 Judge's e-mail: alecadmonius@aol.com Experience: - High School debater - Occasionally Judge Rounds Judged this topic: Two Judge Paradigm: Tabula Rasa Rate of Delivery: 4 Moderately fast Quantity of Arguments: 5 Many Topicality: 1 Vote on it often Counterplans: 1 acceptable Generic Disadvantages: 1 acceptable Conditional Negative Positions: 1 acceptable Debate Theory Arguments: 1 acceptable Kritik arguments: 2 usually acceptable Overall judging paradigm: The prompts listed above are fairly vague so I'll elaborate.

I will vote on nearly any argument as long as the way that it is explained makes sense and actually warrants my ballot. To aid in this, both teams should explain in great detail what the actual argument that they are making is and why it is the most important aspect of the round for me to vote on. Impact calculus is extremely important to me as well as a good line by line debate (debate is about clash after all). I don't have a tendency towards any specific type of argument nor do I really have any arguments that I won't vote for as long as they are well articulated.

Some specifics:

Paperless - I don't charge prep time for flashing as long as both teams aren't doing any prepping during it.

Tag Teaming/Prompting - Totally cool with it, debate is meant to be a team activity. Just don't make the speech for your partner; that would be crossing my very generous line.

Kritiks - As a K debater, I am probably more likely than most judges to vote on a critical argument; however, as a K debater I expect a little more work done on the K if you want me to vote for it. Simply put, if you're the 2NR and you're going for a K, those five minutes should all, or nearly all, spent on the K.

Topicality - I run topicality as part of my own Neg. strategy, I hold it as an apriori issue in the round. That being said, for the negative to win on T, they need to be winning every single part of that T argument.

Theory - Of all things in a debate round, I am probably least likely to vote simply on theory, especially if you're just taking twenty seconds to pull it over in your final speech. However, if there is something legitimately abusive and the theory argument is articulated well I will certainly vote for it.

As for anything else, I am more than willing to answer specific questions before, or even during the round (within reason).

I should say that while this is typically my paradigm, not every debate round is the same, some decisions may contradict what I have posted above. In the event that a decision doesn't reflect this, I'll do my best to explain why that round was different for whatever reason and why that forced me to vote the way I did.

Ethics Statement: Agree