Moffitt,+Andrew

Constraints: Mukwonago High (2013-2014 Tourney)

When listening to a debate round, I am looking forward to the clash and education that both sides gain, not the mindless reading of cards and disrespectful behavior towards others. I know that this may be a bit nebulous, so let me break down this down into several points:

**Background**: Assistant Director of Debate- Marquette University (Worlds), 4 years HS exp. (Policy), 4 years of college debate (NPDA & IPDA), 7th year judging policy debate.

**Overall Philosophy**: Stocks, with a strong desire for quality over quantity. Clear argumentation and analysis needed, especially in the rebuttals. This means Mpx Calc. and Voters are really nice to have. I want to do as little work as possible to untangle a round before making a decision, and it would suit your team well to consider that desire.


 * Topicality **: Very important to me in the round (stock issue #1, after all), so run it if you feel that the case is not prima facie. However, if you don't have a complete T structure/story, I will be most displeased, and it will be easier for me to remove T from my flow with the appropriate Aff. responses.

**Ks**: Let's just say that, if you run a K in front of me, you need to make it count (if you are unsure how to run a K, then simply don’t risk the chance that it will backfire). Solid links to case, and a better alternative than just "Reject Aff" is what I will be looking for. This needs to be an argument that is run under legitimate circumstances, not simply as another argument to spread the flow with.

**Performance Debate:** Simply put, __**NO**__.


 * Critical Affs **: Same rules as Ks: make them count, and don’t run them if you are unsure how to handle them. I don't like them personally, but I will listen to them if presented. __ **YOU NEED TOARTICULATE WHY YOU DECIDED TO GO THIS FAR OFF THE RESERVATION FROM THE ADVOCACY OF THE AFF., and why this argument deserves my ballot. ** __

**DAs/CPs**: Run them, and run lots of them. I have no issues with them as a form of Neg. Strategy. Again, structure is key, so don’t leave arguments hanging half-finished.

**Speed**: I dislike speed (not to mention the excess hyperventilation common at tourneys today). If you wish to talk faster, please slow down for taglines and analysis of evidence (including rebuttals), so that my flow is clear. Remember, less work for me does equal an easier and less confusing decision at the end of the round for you. I will sound like a broken record yelling “Clear” at you if you are not intelligible in a round, and that will be reflected on the ballot if necessary.

=
**Tag Team Debate/ Open CX:** Simply put, __**NO**__. These portions of the round are meant for only the verbal participation of the speaker and/or the person handling CX, and I will not allow it to be changed simply based on the prevailing culture of debate today, which has not yet been supported by rule changes at the national/state level. If you do this in a round, I will penalize your team on the ballot. If you MUST share information with your partner during his/her speech or CX, do so on paper and/or in a way that does not unduly disturb the round. =====

**Decorum**: Please be nice to the people in your round, if that is not too much to ask. I know this activity can be heated at times, but debate (in my mind) is as much an academic activity as it is a competitive activity. We are expected to gain necessary skills from this event, and I feel that respect for other's opinions and decisions has been thrown under the bus in recent years. If you are personally disrespectful in the round to the other team/partner/judge/audience, I will penalize you on the ballot.

Hope this little bit helps. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me before the round begins. Good luck everyone.