I profess to have an old-school PURE policy paradigm. What the heck does that mean? Look up the strict definition of policy paradigm from awhile back, and you will read that policy meant a judge sat in the back and voted for what he/she felt was the best policy for the United States. In other words, they pretended they were the president. EVERYTHING you do in my round should be argued under that framework; I am the president. Not specifically any president, especially one with little to no command of the English language, just a hypothetical president. For those worried about or intrigued by the implications, here's a guide:

Speed - Don't. Yes, because you have time constraints, you'll have to speak faster than you really would in front of the president. I'll bend that much. You still wouldn't argue auctioneer-style. Go with this guide - if you think you might be too fast, you are. Depth, not amount, is going to sway my decision. No amount of "but they didn't counter the six T-blips we fired off in the first two minutes of our 1NC" is going to help you...because I didn't bother writing them down. You respect the office or you don't get an audience with the president.

Topicality - You might think this can't be argued, but it can. If, as president, I hired two teams of advisors to debate what I should do on a topic, and one of them did something besides what I hired them to argue, I'd fire them. In the case of the round, I drop them. It also means that if the other side isn't really non-topical, and you're just showing off your silly squirrel definition, I'm likely to put the secret service on you. So make sure you have a good case in reality, not in debateland. I am a "story" T judge, not a technical T judge - skimp on explaining voters at your peril.

DAs and advantages - Clearly, the president has to be concerned about nuclear war. But to suggest to him that everything leads there? You'd be quickly dismissed as a nutcase and then given an ambassadorship to someplace not so nice. This goes for both sides. Go there and all the other team has to do is spend 20 seconds showing you to be a nutcase and your impact goes away. I like real impacts because I am trying to (fictitiously) decide real policy.

CPs - Absolutely, within the framework. Tell me we should let China do it; we should consult the EU first, etc. You must keep the CP non-topical and competitive however. I hired two teams of COMPETING advisors, not lobbyists who will each sell me their own aff plan.

K - Be selective. Kritiks that function in the real world with policy alternatives are great. The president absolutely should care about the moral underpinnings of the Aff case or neg counterplan. They don't always, but I will. On the other hand, if the American people will laugh me out of office for rejecting a good idea because of some bizzare solipsistic construction a strung-out philosopher dreamed up, I'm not voting on it.

"Performance" I'm trying to do what's best for our country ON THE RESOLUTION. If your performance makes the resolution tangential, the secret service will be asked to not-so-gently escort you from the room. Also see the comments on non-realistic K above.

Things that are bothering the president this term: Pre-written analysis that ignores the arguments in the round and puppeting,

Finally, the president is a busy man. You do your arguing and don't expect me to do it for you by calling for all your cards at the end of the round. If you didn't make it clear enough, I guess you didn't consider it a very important point for me to consider.

Lastly, enjoy this. It is a rare opportunity to debate for the president. Don't be rude and don't be lazy. Have fun within the seriousness of the fake situation.

I've judged plenty of LD this year and here are my top five thoughts about winning my ballot:

First, you NEED to show me the world of the aff vs. the world of the neg. This doesn't mean policy plans; it means if I uphold your value, what does the world look like? How is it so much better than the other side?

Second, I will listen to "counterplans", but be aware that this does NOT excuse the negative from defending their whole side of the resolution. You can't JUST defend the CP. Think of the CP as a great way to do #1, above.

Third, I'm okay with theory in general, but I don't like a round full of it.....because those rounds are, well, full of it.
Specifically, telling me how your value assumes theirs or is a pre-requisite, etc. (aka framework theory) is a wise move as long as we don't forget to also talk about the resolution. Proving their value is invalid is fine; telling me the resolution automatically makes them unable to win is not.

Fourth, I hate speed. Ask the policy kids that remember me. Then, don't do it.

Fifth, I very much appreciate line-by-line refutation. Tell me where you're attacking before you do it.