Green,+Adam

Judge's Name: Adam Green High School Graduation Date: 2012 Judge's e-mail: green.adam29@gmail.com Experience: - Coach a team - High School debater - Occasionally Judge Rounds Judged this topic: 12 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: I am willing to listen to any arguments that the debaters are willing to make. My biggest concern is that the debaters are making the arguments that they are most comfortable with, and not trying to do what they think I'd like. Similar to most judges, I do have arguments that I like more than others, but I try not to let that effect me when evaluating a round. I definitely prefer policy-oriented debates, especially a good case debate. DA vs. case debates are probably my favorites. I love counterplan debates as well, especially with a good specific net benefit. I am very willing to vote on perms and theory against a counterplan. I am actually a fan of theory debates, and like voting on them if there is a good specific abuse story presented. Potential abuse is a tougher sell, but still a possible route. I am very susceptible to vote on perms against the counterplan, especially if the counterplan is egregiously non-competitive. With kritiks, I am not that well read on most literature, so the debaters need to make sure they know the argument and can explain it. If it is explained well, I am more than happy to vote on it. If the critical negative speeches on the kritik are just a bunch of pre-written blocks that use language that is just trying to confuse the other team, chances are you will confuse me as well and I will be far more reluctant to vote on the kritik. However, since I am more policy oriented, I like hearing things like impact turns and perms against the kritik, although on the perm debate the aff likely has to do some work on either why their perm isn't severance/intrinsic (very tough sell) or why severance or intrinsicness isn't a big deal (much easier route). I am also a fan of topicality, as long as the debate doesn't become a battle of reading blocks back and forth. This is also true of theory debates: I find that when teams go for theory, they sometimes just read each point off their block in multiple speeches. Unless the theory debate is impacted like it should be, there is no reason to vote on it. The burden of presenting a voting issue is always on the team advancing the theory violation. There needs to be work done on competing interpretations vs. reasonability here. The most important standard on the topicality debate in my opinion is limits.