Wasser,+Kimberly

I am taking a minor variation on Dan Hansen's judging paradigm for this tournament. Ask if you want more information on my individual thoughts on these issues.

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. 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 want to distinguish yourself between the guy that reads all the side-effects at the end of medication commercials. 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. If I can't make out what you're saying, I didn't flow it.

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 don't waste my time). So make sure you have a good case in reality, not in debate-land. I am a "story" T judge, not a technical T judge - skimp on explaining voters at your peril. If you are arguing against T, please respond to the T violation; I can't tell you how many teams I've seen that either don't or that throw the wrong word back out for a definition (which makes my ballot much, much easier).

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. 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. Please give me a policy option!

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 (again, for wasting my time). Also see the comments on non-realistic K above.

Things that are bothering the president this term: Puppeting-I can and will dock speaker points if I see this happening so let your partner talk! Name calling- Instead of saying that a plan/counterplan/DA/K "sucks", perhaps you should instead inform me of why it is a far inferior option. Also, don't attack the opposing team with names like "stupid" or "idiots." This is unprofessional and leads me to wonder why you don't attack their plan, which should be your focus.

Finally, the president is a busy man. You do your own arguing, so 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. This sometimes ties into "If I didn't hear it, I didn't flow it" theme.

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