Buck,+Sera

School: Appleton East

Experience: While in high school, I partook in policy and public forum debates. I did extemporaneous and student congress as well. This is my second year judging - and have been doing so in the South. I spend most of my time in the experienced PF and LD pools though have been found in impromptu and extemporaneous pools as well. At the University of Tennessee, I have done tournaments at the collegiate level in Parli-Style debate (a mash up of extemporaneous and public forum).

Speed – I can handle about a 7.5 on a scale of 1 – 10 (ten being the fastest). Just be extremely clear on your tags and signpost. Teams forget that sign-posting is necessary – I don’t like guessing what you’re trying to tell me. Make it clear and easy for me.

Overall – I like a clean debate. In that, don’t make a mess of fifteen arguments because you feel it is best to have a larger quantity of arguments than your opponents; quality is key. I would rather you have 10 well thought out arguments instead of 15 muddled arguments that have no links, no direct impacts, and are really just a time suck. Give me solid reasoning as to why the Neg is abusive with their K, or how the AFF’s plan text is abusive. Tell me why the impact is crucial to the round. I need to know why your impact should be considered instead of your opponents. Give me a method to how I am to weigh the round. If I don’t have a set of guidelines, then I may choose something ridiculous.

Additional Information:
 * 1) Open cross-ex is fine by me; I do not mind taking evidence either as long as both teams are okay with this.
 * 2) Topicality is fine. If the Neg is going to use T as a central argument, then they need to provide a clear and complete T-shell. Abuse needs to be outlined. Simply saying "they are abusive. Vote them down." is not enough for me. I am willing to vote on it...when done right. The AFF needs to respond with "we meet" or a sufficient counter-interpretation with their own standards. I feel that debate should be about more than the interpretation-game...but I will still listen and entertain your arguments if that is your route.
 * 3) Counterplans are fine in my eyes. As long as it has all its parts - and is sufficiently presented, I will listen to it. Please make it competitive by tossing out a DA or something of that nature. However, using it simply as a time-suck is annoying.
 * 4) I struggle with Kritiks in that I can never find them to be sufficiently presented to me. You should have a solid grasp of your argument if you are going to use it. Again - don't use it just as a time-suck.
 * 5) I am not a personal fan of theory, simply because I do not find it adequately presented. A team that can present it to me sufficiently, may earn just a few more points in my book.