Alex(ander) Anania
Background: 3 year policy debater in the Milwaukee Urban Debate League for West Allis Central. I’m a second-year out.

Constraints: West Allis Central, (Madison West and Homestead since I’m judging for them)

2013-2014 Note: I’ve read into this case, but haven’t judged or debated it.

Judging Philosophy:
I'm tabs. Meaning I will vote on just about anything if you argue it well. In my years I ran just about everything, K's, CP's, and even a bit of irony.

In-round expectations:
1) Be respectful: I admire debaters who show respect for each other in CX while setting up their arguments
2) Slow down when reading, especially for citations and key warrants/impacts
3) Organize your evidence
4) I want roadmaps (not timed, of course) and signposting is helpful, especially if you stray from your roadmap.


Open cross ex: Sure. Take the evidence if you need too.

Prep:8 Minutes

That said I have a few things I want to go into specifics:

On case:

I like it, but please for the love of God, tell me what point you’re going off of from the previous speech, and use analysis (it’s your friend). Create the clash and I will like you and pick you up. That applies to everything too, create the clash and make it easy to flow. It makes it easier to write down your name on the winner line. For solvency, statistics work well (i.e. Withdrawal from Iraq has empirically proven to reduce violence: British withdrawal from Basra by 90%).



Topicality: If you're running it as a time suck, please save your time because I don't find that to be an argument that helps us learn anything.



DA:

the more specific the link, the better (the best links are when debaters reference their opponent's evidence or cross-examination answer to explain how the plan ties into the disadvantage).You may not win if you win your DA's case may outweigh. Impact calc is HUGE in the 2NR and 2AR. It wins you rounds, and you should spend time doing it. Don't go for everything, but don't go for too much either.



CPs:

I very much enjoy counterplans which employ different ways to solve the same harms. I'm not very big into theory so focus on solvency/the net benefit.




K:

If you're serious about philosophy, let's talk of it outside of debate when we're not limited to two hours and don't bother with generic kritiks. Acceptable kritiks in my view must have solid links (example: structural racism) and an alternative . . . so I wouldn't say this is your best option but I vote on them if a) the affirmative drops them or b) you can demonstrate empirical support for how the kritik is happened in the real world.

Paradigm (Storytelling): I view debate as two teams telling different stories and I love to hear stories that
a) Frame the round ("This debate is really about . . .: ),
b) Clash, providing good warrants (refer to their/your warrants when you extend cards) and
c) Evaluate realistic impacts (Tell me the "Who? What? Where? When? Why? How?)" I'm tired of hearing the same old story that the world is coming to an end . . . I like it when debaters tell me what would realistically happen should a plan pass, especially when it's supported by creative thinking and historical, scientific, and cultural knowledge.

As a storyteller, you are empowered to speak for/against policies that deeply impact communities, including persons whose stories are often overlooked by the powerful interests that are the sources for much of the policy debate evidence. Likewise, just because you may not have a "card" doesn't mean that you can't make an argument.

I will not disclose but I will give you critiques.