Debated for Liberty University.

Current: University of Florida

Yes email chain: josiahmacumber@gmail.com

TLDR: Do not feel the need to adapt to my preferences I will do my best to judge fairly. Be persuasive and tell me why arguments are important. Dropped arguments are true arguments, but you need to still explain them and why they matter.

Speaking Preferences:

Slow down on analytics people can only write/type so fast, so slow down if you want me to flow it all. Same applies for theory arguments.

I do not have a concrete method for assigning speaker points. That being said things that help are: clarity, volume (not a big fan of barely being able to hear someone), cross ex (good questions/good answers), and strategic decisions.

K: Have a specific link to plan action/reps/epistemology makes it a lot easier to win instead of generic state links- those are cool and all, but at least contextualize it. Many times bad link debating is done so that the link explanation could have been read against any affirmative on any topic. Those are bad ways of explaining a link and it should be articulated in context of the round that is being had. That can take a variety of forms such as reading through the other team's evidence and pulling quotes that prove your link argument or the logic of the link. It could also take the form of using the answers that other teams provide in cross ex. Each link should have it's own unique impact and it would behoove you to explain how the link turns the case.

Framing for these debates is essential and direction is key for what to prioritize. It's nice to win the alternative, but I don't think it's necessary. IF you are not going for the alternative make it clear otherwise I will evaluate the perm and whether the alt can overcome the instances of the links.

CP: A good CP and DA combo is a solid option for the 2NR. I also enjoy well thought out PIC's. CP's don't necessarily need evidence, but it is preferred (solvency advocate theory is probably a good arg against this).

Maybe it's just me, but after a team spreads through the planks and card for a CP I am still somewhat unsure what it does. Explanation is important in terms of explaining how it solves and why it is different from the affirmative.

DA: Explain it well and it's interaction with the case. You need to do the analysis of why it outweighs the case or turns it. Do comparative evidence analysis and provide reasons why their evidence is not as warranted or does not really answer the DA and tell me why your evidence is better. That does not mean "our ev post dates by 3 days so it's better", but rather "our evidence analyzes long term trends through X method that provides a predictive claim, and their's is an opinion article".

T: Not really a big T expert, so explanation is key.

Generally I believe that over limiting is better than under limiting due to in depth research providing better education. Provide a coherent view of what the topic would look like without the limit that you set on it versus what the affirmative justifies when you are impacting out the T debate. That could include a case list that they justify that explodes research burdens or specific ground loss. You do not have to win in round abuse. Just impact it out well and you should be good.

Analyze the other teams evidence and make smart args against it. I think that is specifically true in the context of things like T subs (some ev makes claims of what substantial is not, but does not set a standard for what is substantial).

Framework: Strategic and I vote on it. However, I think that there are a few different ways to do it that are less offensive / more strategic. Top level winning that debate is a game probably means that fairness is an impact, but that work needs to be done. If education is the impact you are going for there must be good reasons why policy education is desirable or better than critical education. I think it is less strategic to make arguments like "our education spills over and we can one day do _____ to change the system"... that relies on a notion of spill over from policy education. If that is true, why then does that spillover not apply to the affirmative and their method/epistemology?

Theory: Dropped theory arguments are pretty easy to vote on, so don't drop them. Provide a reason why the abuse outweighs any other possible impact and make it a big deal. Just don't blaze through it and expect to win even if it was dropped.

-Policy AFF's: Tell a coherent story and do good impact calculus. Often times teams forget to do that and it's a super important part of the last rebuttals. If you are reading a hard right AFF I find it is better to just stick with it and go for util/death outweighs. I really do think it's more strategic against the criticism to go hard right.

-K AFF's: I think there is a great value to critical affirmatives. Just be prepared for the framework debate and explain why your model of debate is better or have disads to their model. I find it very helpful when critical affirmative provide examples and have in depth historical knowledge about their theory. In addition, providing examples of things the aff could do or would do helps to materialize some of the theory that can make it easier to grasp especially if it is not a literature base I am familiar with.

I typically find that most teams are not ready to defend the entirety of their aff, so if you are negative against a K aff I think that a well developed PIK argument and some case arguments are rather strategic.

There is no single way to my ballot and there are often a variety of strategies that can work in the debate. Be smart and strategic... I often find that the debates I enjoy the most are guided by bold choices from the debaters.

Be nice to other debaters. That doesn't mean you can't be witty or funny just be respectful of others. I think debate is a great activity to make new friends and to enjoy yourself. There is no need to take yourself and other people too seriously, creating a fun environment to debate in makes debates 100% more enjoyable. Jokes are also appreciated. On second thought... maybe don't.

I am a policy debater at Liberty University, but I also partially run the capitalism and specieism kritik and I am partial to certain other kritiks. As a judge, I feel like the best summation of my philosophy would be: You do you. If you can justify and explain case, I'll follow your lead. If you're starting an email chain, my email is iantreyparish@gmail.com, and I would love to be added to that chain. I like being able to read evidence as I flow arguments, especially since I have a slightly bad left ear. It helps me to know where we're going on the flow.

Here's how I view and look at most arguments:

CPs: Counter-plans are good because they challenge the efficacy of the plan, but I have a low threshold for the AFF's perm---especially with Consult and Agent CPs. If you plan on running a counter plan and winning it, you had better give ample reason as to why the perm and the counterplan are mutually exclusive. If I feel that the perm defense is scant, I will default AFF on the perm.

Topicality: As a debater, running T args is not my strongest suit. I will vote on T, but you have to really work to sell me on it. The best way to win T with me is to talk about "T--Ground Lost". By far, that is the best argument I've seen, and the most compelling. There is no way that a debater can research every possible topic, and I am sympathetic to that argument. Be very, very careful with the "Reasonability Checks Abuse" argument. What you find reasonable, I might find wildly unreasonable. It's winnable, but exercise caution.

Kritiks: Like I said before, I am primarily a policy debater. If you are running a kritik: explain, explain, explain. Show me what the world of the alt is, and how we get there. You need to explain how their plan links sufficiently, how *insert here* is systematically bad and needs to be addressed as a prereq, and the alternative and its solvency. If you kick the alt and the AFF concedes root cause, I view that kritik as a flow of offense against case solvency. I find that fairly compelling and will vote on that. Generally though, if I feel that the explanation is poor, I will default AFF.

Disads: If you run disads, you're in a good place with me. I understand the world of policy far better than I understand critical arguments, and it will be to your benefit. Also, focus on the link story. During my time debating, I've often found that winning doesn't happen on the impact level as much as it does the link level, so have defense for your links. If you have good link defense, then work on impact calculation and framing for me. Tell me how the plan is bad, not just that the plan is bad. I want to know how *insert here* impact effects the world. 

• Politics Disad: This disad is my favorite. I've been immersed in politics since I was 10 years old, and I've followed it extensively. If you go for this disad, tell me where you're going and make SURE you leave no room for me to fill in the blanks. Explain the story well, and I will most likely vote on this.
• Economy Disad: This is my other favorite disad. Due to my immersion with politics, there was some crossover into economics. If you can adequately explain how the plan negatively effects the economy and answer any defense and turns, I will vote on this. Extra points if you can express how this hurts poor/less affluent communities and how that, in turn, effects the entire economy. By far, this and the politics disad are the two best arguments to run in front of me.

Case Debate: Case debate is something I immensely enjoy along with the disad. It can have critical elements and I will vote for those, but policy affs are something that I understand far more. From my vantage point, I feel case debate is slowly going extinct, so I love a good case debate. If there's a 1% chance that the plan makes the world better, I will vote for your plan. I can vote on total solvency takeout for the NEG, but I have a fairly high threshold for that. If you're going down the path of the solvency take out, go all in in the 2NR.

Summary: Remember, debate is for your benefit. If you run an argument, I will play along, but case debates and politics/economy disads are the arguments that click with me the most.