Any pronouns, they/she listed - it's complicated, referring to me using feminine descriptors is fine, though any are accepted. I have no strong feelings about my gender.

***Apparently to search my paradigm, you need to type "Sophia Dal" instead of "Sophia Dal Pra" - just a heads up***

Background: Wooster HS '20, Kentucky ex-pat, Now debate at West Georgia, Class of '25

Conflicts: Wooster High School, Reagan High School,

Put me on the email chain - sophiavansickle477@gmail.com

---Updates---

2/1/24 - This is not the high school level of "We'll take the rest as prep" debate. This is the high school level of cross examination debate. Use your time. CX is important to me and your speaks.

1/18/24 - Sending the plan in the email chain is scuffed. Put it in the speech doc.

10/14/23 - My personal style of debate has become a lot more critical. I coach policy teams pretty much exclusively, but I'm way more familiar with the engagement between lit bases in K v. K debates. As always, I love organized, technical debates, but I have no strong preclusions whether I'm in the back of a policy throwdown or a method debate.

2/22/23 - Some things in debate that others may view as non-negotiables (i.e. flowing, speech-times, etc.) are things I lean towards as being so, but I can be persuaded by framing arguments that these are things I should disregard.

---Top Level---

I think that debate is amazing and unique because of the diversity of positions and stances that we can take, from typical substance debate to debates about the rules to debates about debate. I think that debate is a competition at its foundation and that the educational benefits we gain are shaped from its research benefits. I also think that debate as an activity or as an institution is not shielded from critique.

Feel free to ask me about anything below or any thoughts you have in the pre-round!

My RFDs - are scripted as best I can to organize my thoughts. I have pretty bad ADHD and I tend to have a lot of external thoughts about arguments in any given debate, so I do this to stay organized. It's also how I verify that my decision can be delivered in a sensical manner. My decision on any given debate is usually made at a relatively normal pace, but writing out the decision, (and sometime a separate decision for the other team/over another argument in close debates) usually takes me to d-time in elim debates. I will sometimes read them to myself aloud as well for good measure. I would want my judges to care about the decisions in my debates, so this is my way of returning the favor.

General Argument Preferences - I prefer well-crafted strategies over all else. I do have a soft spot for specificity, but I understand when that is not an option because of new affs, team resources, or miscellaneous reasons. Linearly, the more thought you have put into the strategy, the more I will probably like it.

I have found that I am increasingly annoyed by debates that do not have a substantial portion of them dedicated to answering the aff in some way. This does not have to be with a specific strategy; it can be with making the most with what you have. This can be through generic impact defense, deconstructing a poorly-constructed aff, citing 1AC lines when explaining how the K links, creative counterplanning, etc. Policy debate is plan-focused, and your strategy should be to address it, not to empty your box in the least appealing way possible.

This does not mean that I have apprehensions about the amount of offcase that you read. I think that thought can go into a 12-off strategy as much as a no off/only case turns strategy.

Evidence - Evidence comparison is a great way to get me to like you. Recency isn't everything when it comes to ev comparison. Give me author indicts, prodicts, think-tank biases, etc. The best skill that debaters take from debate is the ability to critically process large amounts of information, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that the analysis of the evidences' sources is important to that processing in our day-to-day lives. If you would be embarassed to read the qualifications of an author aloud during a debate, don't include that piece of evidence and find a better one.

Another point of contestation that should make its way into more debates is the way that authors make their arguments, or the way that debaters have highlighted these claims. Is the author making this claim based on one case study or based on a peer-reviewed, time-series cross sectional statistical analysis? Does the card itself not provide any warrants? Is the highlighting of the edvidence not able to lend itself to a claim and a warrant, or even a complete sentence? Point these issues out during your debating.

I believe the highlighting of your evidence should be coherent enough to read as a public speech, and not phrased like Rupi Kaur's new poetry anthology.

You can "insert the re-highlighting" if you need to discuss the quality of your opponents evidence. I think that having debaters re-read bad evidence means that there is a disincentive to do this type of evidence comparison because of the time it takes out of a speech.

I love evidence-based debates and will want a card doc at the end of the debate. My evaluation of these card docs will be in a way in which I feel I have done the least amount of intervention. To me, this means that cards/arguments that are referenced heavily by the debaters in the final rebuttals, even if they aren't by name, will be read and I'll adjust my thoughts on them accordingly. I will assign the meaning to the evidence that the debaters give it, so, for example, if the 1NC has a highlighted link argument within a card on the kritik, and the 2NR doesn't go for that link argument but goes for another claim in the card, I will not evaluate the extraneous link argument as meaning anything. The evidence you read does not give your argument more weight than you gave it. If you read stellar evidence but can't interpret it for me or move your analysis beyond tagline extensions, then I will not rely on the fact that that card is better than your opponent's.

CX is binding, but that doesn't mean you can read evidence in CX or finish cards in CX. There is a reason that CX is denoted as separate from speech time, and I still hold folks to the threshold of bringing those arguments into speeches, which means that you will just be wasting a lot of time.

Even if someone else cut the evidence you are reading, you are responsible for any issues of academic integrity that arise when you read that evidence, even if you weren't aware of the issue beforehand.

This is not to say I will not vote for teams that don't read evidence. I vote for teams that win debates.

Flowing - I only flow what I catch you saying. Please try to recognize communication break-downs and adjust. I will be following along in the speech document as you read, but I want to be able to understand you.

One of the biggest negative impacts of online debate along with a drop in participation is the increasing card-doc-ification of debates. I am not a fan. Make arguments, do line-by-line, know what evidence they read, FLOW THE DEBATE YOURSELF!

ADAPTATION: I have an auditory processing disorder that makes it especially difficult to flow unclear, online speeches. I can flow top speeds and follow along, but you do not understand how big of a difference clarity makes.

I have recently been attempting to learn how to type with more than my pointer fingers, and am a good flow on my computer but still, please don't let that be a substitute for your own communication.

When flowing debates, I will attempt to line up arguments next to each other, and I would appreciate it if line-by-line is clear as to facilitate this. If I can't do this, I will flow straight down and match arguments and their responses together at a later point, though, this may extend my already egregious use of time post-debate to deliberate.

Absent a defense of splitting up speaking times, the partner that is supposed to be speaking in that speech based on their speaker position is the one I will flow. I will not flow arguments that are being fed to another debater by their partner.

Tech and Truth - I am a "tech" judge. The arguments from the debate that make it on my flow and their implications will be compared based on the connections and the argument resolution that debaters have made.

Above all, when technically evaluating arguments, I value the way that debaters have characterized specific arguments rather than relying solely on evidence to make those comparisons or connecting the dots for them. Cross-applications still need explanation as to how they apply to the new argument. Debates are won and lost through small link distinctions, and especially in buzzword-heavy theory debates, this nuance is lost and leaves me in no way ready to vote on them without explanation.

I have a low threshold for "out-teching" stupid arguments. Stupid arguments can have just as stupid responses. However, if an argument is factually incorrect or incomplete, I'll disregard it. This includes, but is not limited to, voting issues without warranted standards and anything that I can easily google.

(Former) Argument Non-Starters

While rewriting my paradigm, I critically thought about my previous argument inhibitions and realized that they were just based on what I thought were accepted community norms, left over from when I created my paradigm when I was first introduced to national circuit debate. That was stupid of me, and I think that I should be able to defend to myself why I completely exclude an argument from evaluation. Other than, obviously, arguments that are on-face violent, I am fair game for any position.

My previous nonstarters that are now on the table include

- Death Good

- Objectivism

- "No perms in a method debate"

There are two arguments that are difficult for me as a judge:

1. A very pessimistically-read "Debate Bad" argument. Without a way to resolve the offense, I am left wondering why this doesn't link to every debater participating in the debate.

2. This is more of a brand of argument than a specific argument, but any personal arguments that I cannot verify within the current debate. This includes previous debates against this team or incidents between the teams. Debate competition is not the best accountability method for interpersonal violence, you should take these issues to tab, coaches, or relevant authorities to resolve it, not me.

All of my dispositions can be overcame through outdebating the other team. There is always the chance that you could be the debater who makes me enjoy judging issues that I once disliked.

---Misc---

If your strategy involve humiliating the other debaters in the round you should strike me. I am fine with passion about arguments and the way that people communicate them, I do not want harm to come in personal attacks against debaters and their unique positionality in debate.

Online Debate - PLEASE BE MORE CLEAR. I cannot stress this enough. In some of the rounds I have judged, I was very close to losing the argumentation to mumbling or a lack of clarity of speech. Start off slower please. I can flow at fast speeds, but high schooler's laptops are usually not the best, so please be as clear as possible.

The timer stops for medical issues and tech issues.

Lay Debate/Non-Circuit Styles - I debated on a semi-lay circuit for my high-school career, so if your debate style is more stock issues, traditional, or slow, go for it! I will not penalize you for sticking with a local style that you have no control over, just know that I am still a "flow" judge. I'm not a lay judge or blind to circuit norms by any means, I just think that it is not a team's fault where they begin debating, and will not penalize a different style that does not match progressive debate norms.

Speaker Points - are based on skill, respectfulness to the judge and your opponents, clarity, roadmapping, and how you execute your strategy. I do not give you higher speaks based on you telling me to. If you ask for speaker points, I will give you the tournament minimum.

Procedural issues always come before substance.

---Topicality---

I like T debates. I especially enjoy T debates where a substantial amount of evidence is read, epecially evidence about caselists and interpretations with intent to define and exclude. Please explain to me your visions of the topic and why that should frame my decision. Impacting out these debates is important. T is always a voting issue. Some things that I think you should focus on:

1. What is the distinction between the interpretation and the counter-interpretation? I find that debaters oftentimes lose the forest for the trees and dive into the violation debates without solidifying what makes each team's views of what should be included in the topic distinct. A great way to do this for me is with caselists, from both teams, prodicting their interpretations and indicting the opposing interpretation.

2. In what way does the aff violate the interpretation? This seems like a basic portion of T debate, but I see so many high school shells being whitled down so much so that the violation doesn't make it in. If the violation is poorly written or non-existent, point that out to me. I have judged way too many T debates where the violation hinges on an assertion from the negative that the aff is not a thing, when they probably are that thing. I give affirmatives the benefit of the doubt when explaining intriciacies of their plan. This is an area where neg T evidence can really help.

---Theory---

I default to rejecting the argument on theory except for conditionality. If you want me to reject the team on anything else, impact out why. I think that you shouldn't rely heavily on blocks in these debates, or at least make those blocks responsive. Impacts to theory should be clear and articulate; the less buzzwords, the better. The offense of your interpretation or your counter-interpretation should be intrinsic to the interpretation/counter-interpretation.

My leanings on conditionality are that it's good, but I'm not opposed to pulling the trigger on condo bad by any means. I think going for conditionality when mishandled by the negative is perfectly viable and more aff teams should do it. I don't necessarily have a lower limit if you want to pull the trigger. As long as your standards are intrinsic to your interpretation, I'm fine with it. I find that the general practice of conditionality can be argued against and potential-abuse based arguments that come along with it are pretty compelling in these debates.

---Case Debate---

Please do more of this, as per my rant above. I seriously love a good case debate. Have good 1NC answers to the advantages and good explanations and clash on the aff, and we'll have a good day. I think that advantages can be beaten by zero risk arguments. I will vote on presumption if the aff has a ridiculous, completely misconstrued scenario with 0% risk of any of it being a thing.

I think that I can vote negative on presumption if a CP has no net benefit but the neg team proves that presumption lies with them.

I prefer framing pages that are specific to the aff. Debate tends to be extremely reductive of ethics and moral philosophy. Conflating consequentialism and utilitarianism, conflating deontology and structural violence, etc. Pointing out discrepancies in a team's framing and the way they view arguments in the debate is very convincing to me, i.e. a team advocating deontology making a consequential claim, etc.

---Impact Turns---

I love impact turn debates. Please be nuanced with the uniqueness question - I need a very good unsustainability argument to weigh against their impact, otherwise I will still give their impact risk.

---Disadvantages---

Please read a full shell in the 1NC. The link is the most important part of the DA, please explain it well. I think the Aff team can beat a DA with zero risk arguments. Please have a reason why it turns the advantages.

---Counterplans---

Neg must prove competition and that the CP is net-beneficial to the aff. I think process CPs are fine, more so if they are topic-relevant. CP and Perm texts should be specific. "Do Both" or others mean nothing unless the aff explains how the perm functions.

Multi-plank CPs should be broken down for me; please explain how each plank functions and solves the advantages. If planks can be kicked, and the CP is egregiously long, then each plank functions as a conditional advocacy

I think that judge kick needs to be flagged in the debate. This can be through saying "judge kick" explicitly or "The status quo is always a logical option", which I take as meaning "judge kick + conditional".

CPs - Novice and JV Debate: Please y'all, you need a net benefit to your CP. I will not vote on a CP that "just solves better". This has happened in almost all of the JV/Novice debates I have judged this year. Please be a stand-out and don't do this.

---Kritiks on the Negative---

Disclaimer: Though the common theme of this section is that you should explain your thing, this is because I am a perfectionist when it comes to how literature is represented, not because I think teams that read kritiks need to break down their stuff more than policy teams. I recognize that teams that read "policy" style arguments get away with the most blippy characterizations of their arguments too often, and this is a practice that I would like to stop in any style of debate I judge. Both teams will be held to the same standard of explanation of any argument. I despise 5-word theory arguments, framework standards, etc. All arguments have to have a claim and a warrant. Explain the link and the impact of the K in the context of the advocacy you are criticizing.

High theory is fine and welcomed, as long as you show you know what you are talking about.

I need a lot of alternative explanation. What is it and how is it distinct from the aff? Does it capture the aff? Why is it mutually exclusive to the aff? Most importantly, how doe the alternative resolve the links to the K? I think a very convincing way the aff can beat the alt is a defense of your method and DAs to the way the alternative explains the case, if at all. Alts should have a consistent text throughout the debate.

I think Ks should have an alternative or something external that resolves the offense (framework, CP with the K as a net benefit, etc.) I don't like evaluating linear DAs based on K impacts and links if the status quo does not resolve the offense.

In K v. K debates, I need the debaters to explain to me the distinction between the methods. What impacts do each of the methods access? What does the perm look like OR Why does the perm ruin the alt? How does the aff's method resolve the K's links?

Debaters should decide for me whether there are perms in a method debate, but I tend to lean neg on this question. See below.

---Framework/T-USFG v. K Affs---

After the first semester on the water topic, I maintain an exactly 50/50 voting record for for or against framework.

I think that the way that most people evaluate fairness impacts writ large is based on personal preconceptions and biases about what it good. I want to make mine as clear as possible here, while also emphasizing that any framework impact to me is fair game. However, the most convincing genre of impacts for me in framework debates are clash, argument refinement, and iterative testing in relation to how they affect advocacy skills.

I like affs that have creative counter-interpretations that include your method and creative impact turns. If you articulate to me why the aff should be included in the topic better than the neg does, you win. This is best done for me through an indict of the neg's interpretation and the research it creates, not by reading a linear DA against debate norms as a whole.

My only caveat is that I believe that there should be limits on the topic of debate, and I think that the aff will always have a more expansive view of the topic (unless only the aff is topical/some explanations I have yet to find convincing). However, placing at least some defined limits on the aff's interpretation mitigates the offense the neg gets and puts me in a good spot to weigh your impacts against however-better limits the neg's interpretation provides.

I don't think that the reading of framework constitutes violence. Arguments that are loose metaphorizations of debate norms to real-world violence are difficult to win in front of me, and I would be keen to vote on arguments from the negative that that metaphorization is bad. However, more nuanced versions of the "policing/exlusion" DA that involve connections to the aff's lit base and academia as a whole and have an impact that is focused more around your research and education are more convincing.

---K Affs (General/K v. K)---

I'm fine with K affs as long as you have both (A) some sort of advocacy statement and (B) a reason why you shouldn't defend this year's topic. This seems intuitive, but in some K debates I have judged, the affirmative is focused more on the community as a whole rather than

I'm not a great judge for K affs that don't have a robust method defense in the 1AC. I think there is a common trend for these types of affs to defend as little as possible in the 1AC and then shift their explanations to defend whatever suits their fancy in the 2AC and beyond after the neg lays down their core offense.

Because of this, I feel as if, in direct opposition to my previous opinions, I am leaning neg on "no perms in a method debate". It is easy for me to buy that the ability for the aff to permute the K incentivizes writing affirmatives with vague theses to eliminate competition, which hurts kritikal clash, education, advocacy, etc. I think that the negative can do a better job convincing me of this when they read literature-specific offense. Aff, you should have a hearty defense of your method. A specific perm text or hearty explanation, coupled with answers to "no perms" should be enough for you to argue and win that "this perm is good and we should get it". Cards for perms are especially helpful when deciding whether you get a perm or not.

Reflected in the the update above, I find myself spending more and more time reading K literature in my free time. I am familiar with the basics of many areas and their key authors, and I have done some assistant coaching for teams that primarily read kritkal positions, but am not an expert on the latest stuff. Therefore, while I would love to judge more of these debates, I understand that I may not be the best for you in terms of pre-existing knowledge.

Performance - Fine with it as long as it's educationally appropriate.

---Lincoln Douglas---

Judging LD is something I don't commonly do, but you can translate a lot of the above here.

ATTN: My standard for what is a complete argument is high for current norms in LD. Claim, Warrant, Implication. Make less arguments and use that time to make better quality arguments.

I am best for policy debates, quality T/Theory debates, and Policy v. K debates.

I am fine for K v. K debates, and my reading and debate style has put me in way more of these than in the past.

I am less ok for dense phil. I need a lot of explanation and impacting.

I am not good for frivolous theory or tricks.

---Public Forum---

I don't normally judge PF but I have done it off-and-on and coached the event as well. Overall I hate "PF-isms" like "we tell you", etc. and I don't think that PF gets a pass from engaging in good extension and rebuttal norms, i.e. nothing is "sticky".

If you are collapsing onto something/kicking something, you need to say so.

Paraphrasing is bad.

Send me all cards read in the debate or else your speaks are capped at a 25.

The only time something is extended for you is the First Constructive in the First Rebuttal. Other than that, you need to do the extensions yourself.

"Delink" is a pet peeve phrase of mine. It's a "no link" argument.

---Bottom Level---

Behavior - Being rude/obnoxious gets speaks taken away.

Please be humble and considerate if you win and patient if you lose. As long as I'm in the room, no comments should be made about the skill of your opponents or their knowledge on certain subjects. Post-rounding is welcomed until it crosses the line from picking my brain to being angry at me for not seeing that you are so obviously right. If you have a habit of post-rounding aggressively, break it. I have PTSD and will not spare a second going to tab if you react in a way that may trigger an anxiety attack.

I will intervene and stop a round if I think that there is violence, physical or verbal, that endangers those participating in that round. Those who perpetuate the violence will receive an instant loss, 0 speaks, and coaches will be contacted. I will fight tab to give you 0 speaks or have you ejected.

Evidence Ethics Violations - Clipping, Paraphrasing without reading the evidence, and cutting evidence out of context is what I define as academic dishonesty. Academic dishonesty mean an instant loss and I will award you the lowest amount of speaks that the tournament allows.

I understand the novelty of the activity for novices, but I hold JV and Varsity debaters to the standard of being able to properly read a card.

To quote Ryan McFarland, “Clipping is cheating no matter the intent."

A few times now there have been T debates where the aff does not explicitly answer the argument "no truth testing means assume all their claims are false = presumption indpt. of if we lose the interp" and I didn't vote for it, and am not sure if I should have. Now, many things that the aff says implicitly respond to this, I think, and there are plenty of "nuh uh" style answers that are easy to think of and make. (Assuming it's competing interps and not "you are racist for reading T, in-round violence, VI.") But in other areas I am quick to vote on stupid blips and in general I don't like making cross-applications that don't occur to me involuntarily/without straining. So from now on I am voting neg if that happens! You must answer the argument directly, even if it just means explicitly making a cross-application. Be warned! It's right at the top! It's above the email! Just answer it and there will be no issue!

sposito@umich.edu

Above all, tech over truth--to this, there are no realistic exceptions. Fairness in evaluation is most relevant for arguments which are disreputable, and it is my intent to be fair. I will evaluate every argument I have on my flow, and refuse none. It's an argument if I understand it*, which includes most blips but excludes some K things. My opinions about content that follow are the equilibrium provided teams make the best available arguments, so far as I understand them, which means that when the best arguments aren't made, I'm liable to vote exactly opposite of what I've said here.

Although it hurts to say, I am not the best flow, and will likely miss some arguments. I can't be trusted to make the right decision in situations when such a decision hinges on a single, unemphasized argument. To be clear, I will try to do that--and vote remorselessly on, say, dropped one line intrinsicness if I got it--but I may not succeed. I will try my best to be fair, and care about making the right decision, even when it may be inconvenient or for something I find distasteful. I have made the wrong decisions in the past--I am not a relativist, and decisions are right or wrong. Students have a duty to be intelligible, but they do not have a duty to be persuasive beyond the line-by-line. Instead, it is judges who have a responsibility to have to render correct decisions (who is paying versus being paid? Among other asymmetries). Corny as it, numbering 1NC case/2AC offcase arguments, and then adhering to those numbers, helps me a lot and will increase the likelihood I render the most correct decision. Generally I start flowing at the 1NC on case, so I will probably miss ASPEC too....

I am not an educator! In my ideal world, I tap tap tap on my little laptop everything you say so as to correctly record the winner of the competition for which you volunteered... Educator implies a level of partiality and moralism of which I disapprove (ironic I know) and think has run rampant, to everyone's great loss. Similarly, I am not evaluating "who did the better debating"; that's what points are for. Exactly what question I am evaluating in a debate varies across and throughout debates....

I am very sensitive to judge instruction: About when an argument is new, about what evidence I should read or under what circumstances, about how strictly or literally I should take what was said, so on. My default is that I shouldn't read any evidence unless it's a subject of contention and that tags start at 100% risk. (I wish this weren't the standard....)

I enjoy villainy, and things generally hated: scandalous impact turns, process counterplans/neg terrorism, competitive personalities, egregiousness and trickery. My preference is for inserting cards over reading them, until it's like a ton of 1AC cards.

(*= requiring claims to have warrants strictly is impossible, because all warrants are claims which would then require warrants and result in an infinite regress. What is the answer to this argument?)

K affs and framework:

The aff should go for impact turns. I think that K arguments are almost uniformly awful, but will still vote for them. Go for "debate bad means it's good that we destroy it" or "no models--only in-round 'violence'" or whatever else. Moderate-seeming or 'compromise' approaches often do not make sense; K teams are better off when they take aggressive stances. I have an essentially unlimited tolerance for stupid claims, but none for incoherent claims. Cynical and tricky K teams should easily reach competitive parity with top policy teams because of the tactics they have at their disposal, but they must then use those tactics in a strategic way... The ability to do so is usually follows from understanding that the K shouldn't ever win, because it emphasizes exactly why it still does, the fruitful exploits.

There is behavior sufficiently objectionable to sideline competitive concerns. That is easy to establish. The rub is whether or not the object of the dispute (often, reading T) constitutes that behavior. Truthfully, it does not, but policy teams can lose this argument, and do.

DAs do not generally link to K affs, unless the aff catastrophically fails in cross-ex. If they do, then even a negligible risk of the DA clearly outweighs and turns the case. The neg should probably go for T, or maybe a PIK (will the aff successfully execute competition?). High theory Ks can also be good against typical K affs, and mostly now lose, I suspect, for ideological reasons which I will not replicate. I am worse for identity politics than other Ks. I prefer bad faith debating about identity to its moralizing, sincere alternative, and technical debating above all.

On T, the neg should go for fairness. I have a low opinion of the education that debate provides or even could provide, really, even in policy v. policy debates. Clash is not the point of debate--it is strategic to minimize it. I think most of what students pick up in K debates actually harms them (it certainly harms me), and I think that the exclusion of most K arguments would be desirable in and of itself, and wish more teams would argue for that. So, K "research" isn't worth learning about; even if it were, debate wouldn't teach it; to the extent that it does that, gamesplaying still outweighs.... Of course, you need to competently make this argument. But this is where my sympathy sits.

I have never thought skills was any good. I did think clash was good, but don't now. Even good policy teams going for T are liable to lose on "T is a microaggression, racism causes heart attacks, that outweighs the full magnitude of clash." The skills argument that "debaters solve existential risks, small coefficient * a massive value is still massive, outweighs racism," is fine, but as easily defanged as the idea that T is racist at all.

Ks on the neg:

The best Ks are framework arguments that moot the plan. Second best is a concrete (if utopian) alt with framework-type reasons why "do both" is illegitimate. Without some way of overcoming the uniqueness problem, Ks don't make sense and wouldn't outweigh the case if they did. Alternately, the K should be a vehicle for tricks: "If we're right about the incurable racism of the academy, assume that all social science is false and vote neg on presumption" is the kind of thing I would speedily vote on when dropped by the 1AR, perhaps because it was overstretched having to answer several other tricks. Those are the three main 2NRs I am looking to vote for. "Link, impact, alt" is incoherent and factually defeated by the perm double bind. The problem is not me--the emperor has no clothes. To be clear, that excludes "links to the plan," which are bad, non-unique DAs. Even when they are unique, they likely will not outweigh the case without considerable attention paid to framing. Of course, the aff still must minimally extend the perm and non-unique and so on in situations that call for it.

One implication of this is that you really probably don't need more than one link, and it doesn't matter at all if it's specific. Whether or not an argument rejoins the plan does not depend on its novelty to high school debaters.... Similarly, the 2AC really probably does not need much more than "2AC 1 is framework"....

To reiterate, I think the fiat K that moots the case and has the neg go for framework impact turns is very winnable, something on which the aff could reasonably get out-teched. Similar the other 2NRs. I believe debate is a technical game and don't want my feelings in truth about the K to be mistook for my belief that it's not at least sometimes viable. On the other hand, incoherent arguments are extremely unstrategic, because they can be easily beaten.

Obviously, I will only assess the aff's FW interpretation versus the negs. Middle-ground interpretations are fine, but you don't need them to win, and I will won't opt for one unilaterally. A neg interp that allows the aff to weigh the case but reserves uniqueness for links does solve some fairness offense and could be strategic if the K impacts get to extinction (say, security or cap), but I think the aff should probably go for no Ks.

There are some teams and persons who inspired me in the K world--Izak Dunn, James Mollison, Ani Prabhu--who made me believe that more creativity and alternate models were possible and worthwhile. At the moment, it's hard to reconstruct exactly what they were. But I mention them here to curb my cynicism and to break from my narrow prescriptions up until this point. I was a K debater in high school (high theory, Buddhism, anthro).

For policy debaters: If an extinction impact is dropped, it needs no further elaboration.

Topicality:

Reasonability is about the threshold of necessary offense before the the penalty for substance crowdout is outweighed. It is wholly irrelevant of whether or not the aff is popular or easy to debate or if the neg read multiple positions in the 1NC.

It is far easier to win a giant limits DA and 'debatability matters most,' than that precision in the abstract outweighs, and I will vote on that. But my true belief is that there really is a 'best' way to read the resolution in context, and I care about this 'precise' reading immensely. I don't know how pertinent that will be in really-existing debates. I highly, highly recommend Scalia's Reading Law for thinking about topicality.

Plan text in a vacuum is obviously true, and better than all competing standards by a great deal, with the exception of specification in 1AC CX. (It is only better than that by a lot.) Serious question: What would topicality be about, if not the plan? "Planicality" loses swiftly to an analytical PIC and a topic DA. PTIV is not the argument that the text of the plan can be considered in isolation (what could that possibly mean?). It is the argument that the "function" of the plan is determined wholly by its text (as it would mostly be under other standards, if they were ever clearly articulated, without other vague and capacious additions).

Related: Normal means is a factual question. If the aff declares the plan happens in an unrealistic way, the neg should read contravening evidence.

Counterplans & theory:

Update: It is not 1954. Women have entered the workforce, we survived Y2K and this thing called the Internet has swept the world!. Consequently, it does not matter if the 2NC counterplans out of a straight turn. The "C" stands for constructive, even though it is preceded by a "2." Why can't debate be fun?

I like counterplan competition and find it interesting, especially its outer recesses. I agree exactly with Rafael: "I don’t share the sanctimonious distaste that many do for plan inclusive or process counterplans. I won’t think a net benefit is bad just because it’s ‘artificial’ and I don’t think a DA/Case 2NR is necessarily better than a counterplan that steals the aff." You should go for the argument that maximizes your chance of victory, regardless of whether or not it represents research as some people in the community may like. Clearer: It may be difficult to convey how unconcerned I am with a practice in debate being 'educational' or not. Debate is a game played to win, which has the incidental sometimes-benefit of teaching kids some economics and current world affairs, and maybe some philosophy. What I care about is whether or not the counterplan makes the game better or worse, more fun or too unmanageable. Of course, education matters, and I will behave like a normal judge insomuch as I won't go rogue and ignore that part of the debate, and I know it's a pain to adjust the blocks for some ideologue... But I will be quite receptive to teams making the commonsense fact-and-values claims that give me license to mostly ignore pedagogy and focus on the part of the game that matters....

Textual alone is a bad standard, but I think textual and functional or just functional are both OK. Process counterplans I think are key neg generics, certainly on bad topics. In CP debates, may we all drop the politeness that a K being a generic or a functional limit is a desirable state of affairs? I care most about process counterplans being fun, or, on the other side, word games before fun, or at least an idiomatic skill.

I am a little higher on theory than I used to be, because I realized that competition alone cannot elegantly exclude game-breaking counterplans, like those which fiat both the federal government and the states, or private actors. But I am still mostly in the "get good" school, and am fine for the neg on most questions. Then again, theory is a technical matter like any other, and in fact more susceptible to fatal drops, and so it's still probably worth the time.

Conditionality: Seven is clearly worse than two, but even seven isn't so bad. That said, the fashionable new answers to dispo are Russian misinformation meant to undermine Hilary Clinton: "Plank spam" is answered by selectively permuting, and the definition is not vague: An advocacy is dispositional if it may only be kicked once the aff reads a perm or theory against it.

RVIs: Stupid, but don't warrant suspension of the law of tech over truth.

Judgekick: Truthfully good, but no different than everything else in vulnerability to technical debating.

Text vagueness: Concern is overheated. The neg should write texts as vague as they can get away with, but counterplans should probably be policies. Normal means determines what the counterplan does; sufficiently vague ones may factually do something unrelated to neg solvency claims.

DAs:

Again Rafael: "I don’t understand the moral panic about politics, ‘generic’ DAs, or links to fiat. A disadvantage is just some negative consequence the plan brings about. The nature of that consequence is entirely irrelevant except to the extent it affects the substantive magnitude of the impact." And again, you should go for the argument that maximizes your chance of victory.

Zero risk will probably only be achieved through judge instruction, or expired uniqueness, or some sort of plan flaw. But even then, how can I be sure that I'm not only hallucinating it's not 2016? Or that the author of the card didn't accidentally cite the wrong bill? Truthfully, I think this logic is suspect, but the reasons why that are commonly discussed in round are unimpressive.

Case:

See the note on PTIV as well.

What fiat means is open to debate, but starts at durable, good faith passage. Circumvention is a theoretical, normative matter whose viability varies by the topic.

Presumption is the procedure for adjudicating a tie, not deference to the status quo through "least change." Of course, it may behoove the neg to advocate the "least change" standard.

Analytics can defeat many advantages (but probably won't get them to zero).

Soft left affs will likely struggle. The more the "framing" arguments are defense (even if not in the traditional sense), the more successful they will be. Strategies that grant that the plan causes extinction but plead that other issues matter more hardly even need to be answered... judges are licensed to do obvious impact calculus in almost every policy debate...

Impact turns/misc. arguments:

Debate is a voluntary, competitive game centered on disagreement, which means that, of all scholastic activities, it must be the most permissive in speech. I must be a responsible supervisor of high school students, but I also have a responsibility to ensure fairness between competitors, as measured by technical, openminded, and impartial judging to the best of my ability. Relatedly, skill in the art of debate requires the cultivation of mental toughness and the ability to countenance ideas that may be upsetting at first; it requires a philosophical tact and cognitive flexibility to take seriously a superficially ludicrous claim, or four. Debate should not be a place where scoffing is good enough, or where students are taught to run to an adult the moment they encounter something challenging--that is literally everywhere else. It should certainly not be a place where judges abandon logic and allow bad responses to defeat arguments they dislike. Not only would I undermine the fairness of the game were I to intervene against some arguments, I would also compromise the development of habits of mind that are sorely needed nowadays, and which, you'd hope, debate would provide....

If it's not clear: Yes, that includes the death good argument that all human life is worse than nonexistence on balance, so maximizing the number killed is good. It also includes spark and war good and liberal shibboleth bad and aliens and souls and libertarianism and yadda yadda. My views are no longer the in majority within our community which, although discouraging, has the silver lining that I am perfectly comfortable saying that if you would like judges to intervene on your behalf on those issues, you should strike me. You will still have the majority of other judges to choose from; I'd like to judge debates where teams have 'opted in' to the joy of nihilism.

(Also, it is not just that if you cannot beat bad arguments, you deserve to lose. Yes that, but not only. First, some 'bad' arguments are clearly reasonable, e.g. animal wipeout (conditional on utilitarianism). Second, and more important, bad arguments are what debate is for; the truth is self-promoting, and rhetoric, at bottom, can only beautify falsehoods. The point of debate is sophistry; it certainly isn't research, judging on what we churn out (or fail to) annually. Read Gorgias. Anyway, there is great beauty and richness and joy in the philosophical attitude, and the ability to try on different ways of seeing. The prevailing Stalinism makes me feel resentment and despair, or can you tell? It's OK, even good, that kids would end up with some bad ideas. I know that because, right now, they end up with more!)

Nonetheless, there is something gorgeous about teams defeating impact turns, defending the truth. Successfully parrying a 1NC full of garbage would make very pleased to vote aff, if they did, and has historically afforded my best points.

D-rules are not answered by "case outweighs," nor uniqueness, and instead require a defense of some kind of consequentialism or criticisms of deontology/rights. My guess is that on this topic, coercion is often answered very badly, and in that sense underrated....

Other issues:

Whether or not an argument is "generic" or has legitimately no bearing on how much the other team has to respond to it. Similarly, the threshold for answering a bad argument is only low in the sense that there exists a short 2AC that wins---it does not mean that arguments other than those 'true' responses are somehow better. So, even a long 2AC against something "stupid" or "generic" may still be unrecoverably poor... in fact, I have seen such 2ACs... Anything else is unfair (to competitors) and illogical.

I do not think it is advisable to send analytics....

On the flipside, if you only need one or a few arguments to win, why say more? No need to waste speech time, if you're right.

The 2NC is a constructive, and so wholly new case arguments and positions (including counterplans) may be read in it. The 1NR and 1AR do not get unjustified new arguments, although justifications are easy to come by, and include the other team making any new arguments. Similarly for cards. When extending, say, dropped theory, the extensions should also be blippy, to avoid making new arguments to which the aff can respond, or at least careful to avoid them, demarcating which kinds of new arguments may be allowed. When an argument is truthfully new or illegitimate, you do not need to respond to it, other than to point that out.

Dropped arguments that make the other team's thing zero risk cannot be recovered from, assuming the team that made them doesn't own goal themselves. Sometimes there was nothing the rebuttals could've done! Focusing on improving your speeches is often a cope--the 2AC/block is generally more tractable and outcome-determinative....

Don't do the annoying echo thing--if you need your partner to say something, the ideal is that you type it in a Google Doc to which they alt tab when you tell them to. If it's not written down, then I will flow the speaking partner until it becomes excessive, after which I won't flow it at all. The only reason you should repeat them is if it wasn't audible. Obviously, this is bad for your ethos and you should try to avoid it.