John Cutler
School Affiliation: Hillcrest High School (Idaho Falls) 2002-2006
NFL National Qualifier Cross-Ex 2005
2 time Idaho State Qualifier Cross-Ex
Brigham Young University- Political Science Major

Policy Maker: I will weigh the round based on the impacts standing at the end of the round.
Key things to consider:
Speed: Quality is always preferable to quantity of arguments. I like well thought out in depth debates. The faster you go the more risk of me missing something important.

IMPACT CALC: nuclear war, genocide, extinction etc... will probably have little weight in the round if the opposing team takes out the probability or the time frame of the impact. THIS MEANS: small real world impacts ie: suicide, crime, higher standard of living, etc. will probably outweigh the aforementioned impacts. Run what you want but it better have a strong causal story.

On Case: Real on case clash is my favorite part of debate rounds. Enough said.
DA's: The more specific the Link and more Unique the more the impacts will be weighed.
CP: make sure there is still clash. Good theory args on both sides are important. Please be specific and not generic.
K: Are often Generic and could have the same problems as Nuclear War impact Scenarios. Alternative should significantly solve implications.
T: Rarely a voter for me, only if it's very clearly off topic.

I'll judge the round on the arguments you make. Be nice!


I'm a policy maker judge which to me means, at the end of the round I am going to weigh the positive change created by the affirmative case versus the negative implications of passing the affirmative policy proposal. If the positive outweighs the negative then the affirmative wins, if the balance is neutral or negative than the negative wins.

Generic Scenarios with improbable impact scenarios will likely have little weight in the round if the Affirmative or Negative can show that the scenario has multiple causality, is empirically denied, or is not unique.

This means the arguments that have the biggest weight in the round will likely be the "smaller" real world implications of passing or not passing the affirmative proposal.

Clash is crucial. The Negative should attack the affirmative case directly or in some way create direct clash with the thesis of the affirmative proposal. The affirmative should clearly rebut the negative positions.

With regards to speed, I want you to show me that you understand the arguments you are making and the theories behind them. This will mean an emphasis on the quality of your positions not the quantity of them. Please focus on showing me you are intelligent debaters that understand the positions you are running and not that you know how to say more things than your opponent. With that said, I will probably follow the rate of delivery that you choose, but the faster you go the greater the possibility of me missing something you feel is important.

Tell me what the most important issues are, weigh the round in your last rebuttals. This will make things clearer for me and show me what you feel the most important issues are.

Topicality is rarely the reason for my decision, but it will be if you can really show that the Affirmative is far outside of the realm of the topic.

Counterplans: I'm open to them as long as you can preserve clash and avoid being generic. I'm open to and understand counterplan theory, show me the theoretical implications of running a counterplan (positive or negative).

Kritik's: I'm open to them. Two things must be proven on the neg for the Kritik to be an important voting issue for me.
First, that the affirmative uniquely cause or perpetuates the kritik and second that the implications of the kritik are significantly solved by the negative's alternative.

I love Cross Examination, make each think!

I won't make any arguments for you, the round will be judged on what is said in round and how you both interpret each other's positions and my understanding of your arguments.

Be nice, Have fun!

John Cutler