Payne,+Elias

=Elias Payne= I’m a **policy maker** judge… I guess. **Speed:** Do it, but be clear. I usually don’t have any problems flowing it, but I have found that debaters don’t know when to slow down. Meaning, take a break when you move to the next card or the next contention, and read T and theory slower… become a judge and you’ll understand why. **DA’s:** Ok…. run them…. if you want. DA’s are not that complicated, and you should have enough knowledge to know how to run them correctly. Simply extend the uniqueness, link, and impact, and please answer the other team’s arguments. If the impact of the DA proves that the issues of the DA take priority over that of the plan, then I will vote for it. **Topicality:** You really shouldn’t run topicality unless it’s a viable neg strategy. For example, if you know the other team is blatantly topical then don’t run it- it’s just a time suck. On the other hand, if you think topicality should be ran because the team really is untopical (even though they may not be) then run it… I won’t penalize your speaker points or your team because you thought it was a good option. Here’s how to win topicality: prove the case is untopical and how that’s bad for this specific round and debate in general. Extend your voters and standards, and impact T. **Theory:** You can run it, but please…. just be RIGHT (i.e. know what you’re talking about). **Counterplans:** They’re fine, just have a net-ben and prove that the counterplan really is a better option than the plan, and you must impact that (i.e. the net ben). Don’t just tell me that China can do it better because the affs can easily get up in their next speech and say “perm, let’s just do it together”. That being said, tell me why it’s ten times worse for the plan to be done by the USFG. **ASPEC and Rights Malthus:** can we just not… **Kritiks:** I’m fine with kritiks, but a lot of times they get messed up really badly, and it usually comes down to the alternative. I know I said I’m a policy maker (meaning I’m going to choose the best policy), BUT if the alternative really is a better option to the plan (or if the kritik simply outweighs the case) then I will vote for it. The problem I run into with kritiks is that teams forget to actually explain what the alternative even does. Don’t just tell me what you’re going to do, but explain to me the role of the ballot with respect to the alternative. What does signing “Neg” mean? Another big problem with kritiks is the link…. please just make sure they link. That is all. **Performance:** I think performance is pretty cool, and I actually do love to hear it. Here’s where the problem is- can we just not make cases that say black people (or any race for that matter) should overthrow or kill any other races? Also, let’s not make cases that argue that people outside your specific race isn’t good enough to engage in this discussion. At the end of the day, performance affs and/or negs need to tell me two things: 1. what is the role of the ballot (I literally need to know why I’m voting for this argument) and 2. What effect will that have? Answer those two questions clearly (and obviously do all the other work) and you should be just fine.