Why, why, WHY?!

If that is what I am screaming in my head after the last speech is given, you might not like how I decide to end the round. For those of you who have a million different judging philosophies to go through and only want the short version, thoroughly explain yourself so as there are no questions I could possibly ask myself about your topic or arguments because you already covered them for me.

Technically, I am a tabula rasa judge. Easily voting for anything, and i promise, i will vote for anything.

For those of you who do have the misfortune of having me as a judge, here goes nothing in as few words as possible.

I really have no argument biases at all. Like, none. But, HOLD IT! That does not mean you can run anything in front of me. Let’s say, for example, that you decide to run a conterplan that the United States Federal Government should disband and give rise to the country and to anarchy. I am okay voting for that, as long as you tell me the following:
  1. How does this solve the Affirmative Plan? OR...
  2. How is the Counterplan superior to the Affirmative Plan?
  3. How specifically does the mechanism of anarchical chaos allow public health infrastructure flourish?
  4. Doesn't the disbanding of government actually cause the disbanding of governmental zed healthcare?
  5. How will the private sector make it better when they have no laws of conduct or medical integrity to follow now that there is no government to regulate that sector of our lives?
  6. How does this counterplan take into account the fact that I am going to kill the stupid idiot who crashed my car last month - who is going to regulate our lives, or does this counterplan compensate and outweigh the rule of fear?
  7. How does health outweigh the giant shitstorm that will be brewing after the government, and thus the police forces, schools, firefighters, DNRs, DOTs, Insurances, Law Systems, and FDA collapses and disbands?

These are questions i will inevitably ask myself after the round in order to vote, and Affirmatives would be smart to get some of that drawn out prior to the end of the round- it would help. Both sides will be subjected by that type of intricate scrutiny, and the side that resolves the most "issues" in my mind through expert explanation will inevitably win. I have no problem voting for """pink bunnies in marshmallow trucks spraying mustard on peanut farmers wearing pink overalls and eating gummy bears will cause china to recognize the foolishness of an American treasury investment, pullout, crash our economy based upon the 60% (or whatever) income of the U.S. is coming from china, which will cause the bunnies to use wombats and crack whores to infiltrate the communist china, resurrect chairman Mao, combining china with Russia, and start care bear nation to bomb the united states back for it's economy crashing, even though it was their fault in the first place!""" plan, if you fill in the gap as to why bunnies are driving marshmallow trucks, why do they spray mustard and not ketchup, what do they have against pink overall wearing peanut farmers, and what the bunnies' motive was for care bear nation located in china and Russia. Got it? Good.

I personally believe that every judge is biased. In fact, everyone is biased, no matter what... and if you don’t think you are biased, you are biased against reality... and yes, i know, i am biased against biases... i get it...

I LOVE Topicality when it is used strategically. I do not mean used as a time suck, and i do think 12 T in the 1nc is horribly abusive... Aff's please run a WELL THOUGHT OUT AND CONVINCING ABUSE ARGUMENT to combat this. I do not give wins just because they drop this argument or that framework piece. You have to do work and tell me why it matters, why i should vote on it, and why it is essential for me to believe you are right... and, if you are going to run T, use it to pin down the Affirmative team into saying that they are only pulling out COIN troops from Afghanistan arguing it as the only predictable troop basis for an aff plan, and then run a CP saying you will pull everything out that is not COIN using the we meet from the aff as justification as to how you are untopical. you are directly contradicting the aff case, can access the same impacts, offer mutually exclusive worlds, and offer a clusterfuckbomb, poison pill choice to the affs as to what they will pick to lose. i love that :-)

Kritiks are cool, but i want to know you know them well. You can tell me that by examining the metaphysics of an action, we can solve for racism in our country, but you have to offer me the other piece. Someone can be an old school, racist sonofabitch, hate Care Bears, and be a jerk... they can examine the metaphysics of their actions all day and say, "wow. Why am I torturing this Care bare? Oh yeah, because I hate them!" and continue microwaving the firework filled plush toy until his heart is content... and his microwave is in pieces across the house. Tell me why i should adopt the alternative, and then give me some supporting evidence on how that will ever solve anything in the fiat world, or how that will do anything for me in the real world - depending on your framework. I will vote on it if it has a good list of WHYs and I have no question in my mind as to how it would work.

Framework, see Kritik

Performance. *SIGH* Well, i can admit i have heard a rendition of "Capitalism Stole my Virginity," I have listened to an Eastern Indian first hand reading as to how Debate is racist in Native Tongue, and i have Learned that Debate itself is Ironic and the only way to get anything done is through humor. I enjoy the concept of performance, but i do not enjoy just performance, then card war, then performance, then the expectant faces of the performers that i can tell them they won. Nu uh. Won’t fly with me. I expect the other team to really TRY to UNDERSTAND and to EXPLAIN why the performance won’t solve, or make a difference, or isn’t significant, or whatever. I expect the performers to do more than sing and then speed read cards to me. I won’t something I can wrap my mind around, and i want to know the intricate and delicate WHYs of the argument so i can feel well educated and excited to vote for it. IF YOU DO NOT REMOVE THE QUESTION "why" FROM MY MIND, YOU WILL NEVER WIN A PREFORMANCE. EVEReverEVER!

Speed- i want comfortable clarity. I liked running the speed kritik in high school. If i can’t understand, you will get one warning, and then if it does not hit my flow, your problem, not mine. Look at me. If i have nothing on my page, am not typing, or are looking at you with crazy eyes, i am not getting it. I will be very transparent about this. I shake my head in approval if i get what you are presenting loud and clear. I nod in agreement. I you get nothing, i AM getting nothing.

Quickies- yes, split the block. Yes, i will give leniency for 1ar. no, i will not call for evidence after the round. Yes, i will allow open cross ex. no, i will not throw something out just because you said so. Yes, i want more explanation, but no, i do not want you repeating yourself... unless it is really crucial. Yes, i am red headed, but no, do not call me a ginger- i hate that word and will call harassment on you. Yes, i flow on the laptop. Yes, i will time prep time. Yes, i will time speeches. Yes, i want civility. Yes, i control speaker points. No, i do not control who wins or loses - you do.

In conclusion, I am okay with anything. Just tell me why i should be okay with it.