Bourassa,+Sam

Affiliation: Rhinelander


 * Experience:** I lack a secondary or post-secondary debate experience. I came into this activity as an adult. This is now my 5th year judging. I don't enjoy speed, but if I can understand you, I will not fault you for it when determining my RFD. What I do like are arguments that you can summarize in your own words and rebuttals that weigh the round and tell me how to vote.

I allow open CX if both teams agree. I like road maps. I don't allow tag teaming. I enjoy polite and civil debates.


 * Paradigm:** On the most basic level, I would classify myself as a tabs judge. However, I am a tabs judge only in the sense that I do not vote on my own knowledge or opinions. I am willing to hear any argument you throw at me -- counterplans, kritiks, topicality. It's all acceptable if you run it properly and are **creating direct clash** in the debate round. I am not a liberal tabs judge -- in the sense that anything at all goes. I completely disagree with "nasty" game theory debate. Students should not be taking their opponent's evidence without permission, they should not be running evidence to their partner during constructives, and they should absolutely not stand over their opposition while they are delivering their speeches. Furthermore, direct insults, foul language, and all other unethical behavior should be avoided. I find it extremely disheartening that such behavior is encouraged, and don't believe teams that use excessive foul language or call their competition stupid should be winning rounds. Given that, however, I realize I must exist within the current state of policy debate. Therefore, you can still win the round if you are the better arguers -- but such behavior will significantly and negatively impact your speaker points.


 * Preferences:**

I value debate as an educational and speaking activity. So, again, I'm not a huge fan of speed. I will allow open CX if both teams agree. I appreciate a clear road map and sign-posting throughout your speeches. I do not rime road maps. I enjoy polite and civil debates. Please show me that you can think for yourself in the round rather than relying solely on pre-prepared briefs. I only want to hear topicality when it really matters. I don't like to hear arguments about things like the word "its." I like counterplans, and also believe a focus on the fundamental stock issues is important. I'll listen to Ks -- but I'm not a big fan. If you offer a K, I want a policy alternative. The most important thing in the round is that you do good line-by-line, and make sure you pull through all of your arguments for me in the rebuttal. If you don't pull it through, I might miss it and it becomes a non-voting issue. Rebuttals usually determine a win or loss for me and the team with more conviction and better impact calc will generally win the round.