Muenks,+Patrick


 * Debate Background**

//High School (@ Park Hill South, MO)// 2 Years Policy Debate 2 Years LD

//College (@ Washburn University)// 3 Years Parli (NPTE & Parli) 2 Years NFA-LD

//Graduate (@ Drury University)// 2 Years Coach


 * General Things**
 * On delivery: Clarity is important to me, rate (aka speed) is not. Feel free to run a speed criticism in front of me if you want to, but know it will be an uphill battle to win my ballot with that particular argument.
 * Speaker Points: Speaker points are awarded based off of your performance in the round. I do not care if you sit or stand when you speak.
 * Dress: As long as you are wearing clothes, your attire is of little concern to me. I'm in the back of the room to listen to your arguments, not to pay attention to what you are wearing.
 * If you ask me what my "paradigm" is, I default into policy maker and will weigh the round based off of net benefits. I will vote on stock issues, but you need to argue why Stock Issues is a good paradigm for me to shift into. For example, saying the case does not have an inherit barrier and therefore the aff is not upholding its burden to provide inherency is not going to persuade me into voting for the negative. I am fine with gap inherency; as long as the affirmative plan is not already being done in the status quo, I will not vote on inherency.
 * Ask Questions: If you do not understand something about my judge philosophy, please ask before the round starts.


 * Evidence**
 * Quality is more important than quantity. I am usually more persuaded by one piece of evidence researched extremely well as opposed to spitting out three cards that were cut 30 minutes before the round.
 * Arguments regarding the credibility of sources are fine. Make sure you warrant your claims when indicating other pieces of evidence.
 * Calling for evidence/Power Tagging: I will not actively call for evidence unless debaters ask me to do so. Here is an example to explain why: If the aff is touting their card as clutch to winning a link turn on a disad and I read the card (unprompted) finding warrants that it links to the disad, I will vote for the disad. I do this because I would find it unethical to vote for the aff when the foundation for their argument is not true. To this end though, I assume that any evidenced represented by a debater to be true unless it is called into question by their opponents. This is my hint to everyone to engage and read your opponent's evidence to make sure it says what they claim it does. As a critic, I do not feel its my job to arbitrarily investigate evidence without being prompted to. I believe it to be the duty of each debater to take an active role to promote an ethical activity.
 * Disads**
 * Uniqueness/Link: Uniqueness controls the direction of the link for me. Relating this to philosophy, I look at uniqueness as the necessarily condition and the link as the sufficient condition. Thus, you have to be winning uniqueness in order to win a risk of a link. However, I do not believe in an objective truth; I believe possible for both debaters to be winning uniqueness and link arguments. In these instances, the debater with better specificity and nuanced arguments will win. While dates can (and usually are) important, warrants are just as, if not more important to me when it comes to uniqueness and link debates.
 * Internal Links and Impacts: Please have an internal link to your impacts. If you do not know what an Internal Link is, feel free to ask me. I will listen to and vote on impact turns.
 * Counterplans**
 * I default to assuming that counterplans compete via net benefits. The net benefit must operate as an opportunity cost to doing the plan (IE it has to be competitive).
 * Consult Counterplans are okay in front of me, but you need to win arguments that normal means does not include consultation.
 * PICs, Delay and Alt Agents are fine in front of me, but again, they need to be competitive.
 * If the aff reads a perm, I do not treat it like an advocacy, rather it is a test of competition for me. Thus, if I find no opportunity cost to voting for the plan and counterplan (or some permutation), I will vote for the perm.
 * Theory**
 * I hold theory in debate to be a way for debaters to access or not access arguments in the round. I have yet to vote down a debater for running a theory argument. Theory for me, is a tool debaters use to shape rounds. In this vein, theory should be deployed with purpose which should be clearly articulated (see below).
 * Please make sure that the theory you articulate in round is specific to the event you are competing in. If you read a block which makes claims that the 2NR checks abuse, I will probably grin and shake my head.
 * You need to tell me what you are trying to accomplish with your theory arguments. For example, if you read arguments as to why consult CPs are bad, characterize them as a reason to reject the counterplan, otherwise I will treat them as what they are "reason why consult CPs are bad".
 * Criticisms (The K)**
 * I was not a K debater when I competed, however I have come to enjoy K debates since graduating.
 * Resolutional specific Ks will get more traction in front of me as opposed to generic Ks.
 * I require specific parts of a K in order for it to function in front of me
 * Framework
 * Links/Impacts (thesis)
 * Alternative: does not need to have a text, but an alternative should function the same way as a plan/CP should in that there needs to be a stable advocacy for the oppositions to engage.
 * Perms on the K are fine. The K should be an opportunity cost to doing the plan.
 * Procedurals**
 * I believe that the affirmative should specify to the level of the resolution. Calls for agent, funding or what specification usually won't fly in front of me and I have a high threshold for voting on such positions. I will almost always treat procedurals as presses of solvency rather than a reason to reject the case or the debater. There are a few exceptions
 * On politics disads, if you are the affirmative and read bill specification, I believe the negative debater should have to provide you with the information necessary to attack the politics disad since there usually is a lot of different versions of a given bill. An example of why this would be important is the number of different START treaties this year and more importantly, the differences between them. However, if the negative states that they will not link out of any arguments, then I will not vote for the procedural.
 * If there is something in your plan text that would be critical for negative ground. Example, if your case creates public/private partnerships to do the plan, you should probably have a list of the private companies you create partnerships with.
 * Topicality**
 * I believe the affirmative should be topical as a prima facia burden. This belief **does not require there to be proven abuse** in round to justify voting on topicality.
 * If you are running a topicality in front of me (or a procedural) it needs to have the following:
 * Interpretation: define the term(s) on which you will base your topicality argument
 * Violation: explain to me how the affirmative is not meeting the interpretation you provided
 * Standards: Also known as reasons to prefer. These should be the reasons as to why your interpretation is preferable to whatever the affirmative says
 * Voters: I will default to competing interpretations as a framework to evaluate Topicality. This means that I will evaluate one interpretation vs another and based off of that comparison, a winner will be determined.
 * RVI: The negative should be able to check the topicality of the affirmative; more importantly they should not be punished for it. I will not vote on "RVIs". This means I will not vote on RVIs for Time Suck, Reciprocity etc.
 * Effects T and Extra T
 * I will listen to arguments as to why Effects T is good, but make sure it is related to the round (and resolution) at hand as opposed to the abstract. I have a high threshold for voting for Effects T good, but again, specific instances have historically convinced me otherwise.
 * Extra T: I do not believe in severing advantages or planks of plan; mostly because I do not believe their is a fair way to do so. An affirmative case should operate within the confines of the resolutions. I consider plans that solve beyond the scope of the resolution to not be topical even if they solve for the resolution in the process.