Uihlein,+Hayden

Judge's Name: Hayden Uihlein High School Graduation Date: 2009 Judge's e-mail: hayden.uihlein@gmail.com Experience: - Coach a team - High School debater - Occasionally Judge Rounds Judged this topic: 20 Judge Paradigm: Games player Rate of Delivery: 4 Moderately fast Quantity of Arguments: 4 Relatively many Topicality: 3 Moderately Counterplans: 2 usually acceptable Generic Disadvantages: 1 acceptable Conditional Negative Positions: 2 usually acceptable Debate Theory Arguments: 1 acceptable Kritik arguments: 1 acceptable Overall judging paradigm: 50% Gamer, 50% Tabula Rasa. Portage Northern Debate Coach. Senior at Kalamazoo College, Philosophy major with a concentration in Critical Theory.

For the most part I will listen to almost anything but only vote on it if the round warrants it. I want to be reasoned into voting, explaining to me why it's important to vote this or that way in face of the other team's arguments is in my view one of the main purposes of the round. Here are some quick notes on how I feel about each argument.

Speed-Fine. If i can't understand I'll let you know. Then slow down.

STOCK- Aff must win. DA- I love a good disad with a strong link and well reasoned impact. CP- I don't really enjoy listening to counterplans but I will vote and have voted for them. I will listen to non-topical counterplans as long as the negative argues them effectively. For all types of CPs that include the affirmative plan I am really picky about how effectively the CP actually completes and carries out the affirmative plan. Theory- Argue it well and tell me why I have to vote on it. T- Prove to me why there's a violation of the resolution topically and explain your voters. K- Do it big. I have no problems with Kritiks but the team must properly demonstrate why the critical alternative of the K deserves to be voted for. I have no issue with reject K.