Adam Yusen ParadigmLast changed 3/30 8:02P CDT
I debated policy for Niles North in high school and currently debate and coach at the University of Illinois in parliamentary debate and several speech events. I'm fine with speed, but I will be a stickler for clarity. I tend to read evidence if its content is contested or to resolve head-to-head disputes that lack analysis. I'd prefer you take care of evidence characterization yourselves, though. I like to see close engagement with the other team's arguments so if it seems like you are dodging clash, you will be at a disadvantage. Please feel free to ask me for any clarifications on this page before the round starts.
This is my first tournament on this topic and I'm not familiar with the camp research, so please keep that in mind when using jargon.
I would like to be on the email chain/Dropbox/current equivalent. My email is email@example.com.
Things I Like a Lot
-Close policy analysis
-Plan-specific links, disads, and CPs
-Impact comparison that isn't just about magnitude
Things I Dislike a Lot
-Accidental racism, sexism, etc. that isn't corrected with an appropriate apology
-Men talking over female debaters
-Affs that aren't topical
-ASPEC, OSPEC, and the ASPEC-OSPEC Double-bind
-Counterplans that compete off of process
-Stealing prep (prep time ends when the flash drive leaves the computer)
-Both debaters speaking during the same speech outside of prompting
Things That Will Cause You To Lose
-Any kind of harassment or intentional 'isms'
-Clipping cards, manufacturing evidence, or otherwise cheating
Policy debate can come across as very conservative because few debaters are willing to challenge the probability of nuclear war impacts, so I like to see teams refocus the debate on impacts of environmental collapse or systemic violence. The best way to do this is by challenging the probability of war.
I default to competing interpretations, and I expect that both teams will list topical affs/neg ground that their interpretation provides. Topicality is a discussion of what debate should look like, so I want solid examples of the world you're advocating. 'We meet' can be a sufficient answer to T as long as you can prove that you meet.
I believe that the aff has a burden to be topical, so if you plan on eschewing the USFG or the resolution, you should probably strike me. Having participated in both policy debate and speech events, I've found that the structure and rules of speech (and there are many) do not impede the events' capacity for education or radical activism, so I find arguments that the resolution is inherently bad for discussion to be unconvincing. Furthermore, decoupling the aff from the resolution removes the only constraint guaranteeing that the plan will create some kind of negative ground. Because debate is a zero-sum competition and not only a space for advocacy, I can't justify delimiting the aff like this.
Make sure not to have any 'black box' internal link chains - for example, 'the plan helps the tech sector; tech is key to solve global warming.' There are different kinds of tech, and I want to know why the plan's effects matter.
The counterplan should be a disadvantage to the plan by way of its being an opportunity cost - in other words, if the neg proves that the plan precludes a betterpolicy option, then I will be convinced that the plan should not be enacted.
The more specific the counterplan is to the aff, the better. I also like to hear good advantage counnterplans, but again, beware of the black box internal link chain mentioned above. I lean very heavily against Consult, Conditions, and any other counterplans that solve by implementing the plan. PICing out of a substantive part of the plan (as opposed to immediacy or certainty) is a perfectly legitimate strategy that I like to see executed well.
I'm usually fine with 2 conditional counterplans or fewer, but more than that starts to get worrisome and CPs with independently conditional planks are pretty dangerous.
If you read an advantage counterplan, the planks should not be individually conditional. This isn't a judge preference so much as a mathematical fact that some debaters seem not to understand. Each conditional plank you add multiplicatively increases the number of conditional worlds that could exist in the 2NR. 1 advantage counterplan with 5 conditional planks gives you 2^5, or 32, conditional worlds. 8 planks gives you 256. These numbers far outstrip the realm of any condo interp that a judge would vote on if it were phrased as a number instead of 'the planks are conditional,' and all the aff needs to do to close that gap is to point it out.
I will not judge-kick the counterplan for you. If you have not explicitly kicked it yourself, I will assume that the CP is still being advocated in the 2NR, which leads me to:
The aff's job is to prove that the plan should happen. In an imaginary world where there is zero risk of any advantages or disadvantages to the plan, I will default neg because the status quo has not killed us yet. If the neg advocates a counterplan instead of the status quo, this logic no longer applies because both teams are advocating change, so the aff will win in the same world of no advantages/disadvantages.
Overview: I'm a policy hack, and I generally agree that the role of the ballot is to decide between policy options. If your strategy is normally to go for the K, you should probably strike me. I'm outside of the norm in this way, so if you have me on a panel, adapt to the other judges first. You'll probably have my ballot if the other team is the reason the round turned kritikal.
Pre-fiat/representations-based Ks: I think these only really make sense against non-policy affs where the neg wants additional off case on top of T. As stated above, I'm a big consequentialist, so I won't be convinced that the existence of bad justifications for a good plan is a reason to reject that plan. Other than that, I probably won't evaluate them.
Post-fiat Ks: This should just be a disadvantage with uniqueness or a policy counterplan that solves. If it's not, I probably won't find it very convincing.
Discourse Ks: If a team is being truly problematic in the round, I will likely handle it with tanked speaks and/or a loss if necessary. I'm not a big fan of these issues being handled as 'flow' arguments because don't see the use of isms in round as a competitive question. I don't think I can catch everything, so if the other team does something problematic, just call them out and ask them to stop. If they double down instead of apologizing, I'll handle it appropriately. If the link to your Discourse K is something like apocalyptic rhetoric or threat construction, I won't find it very convincing.
Kritikal/Anti-Topical Affs: As mentioned above, these really aren't my thing. The aff should defend the theoretical enactment of a topical plan and garner advantages only off of that enactment. I'm not a fan of pre-fiat impacts.
Again, case-specific links are preferred. I was a Politics hack myself, but I do realize that there are some weekends when Politics is just not a good disad. I am willing to vote aff on zero risk of the disad, but be warned that it doing so will likely require that the negative fully drops a section of the argument.
Speed and Clarity
I'm fine with speed. Please slow down or substantially change your tone for taglines and analytics, there is a difference between "I need to get through this" fast and "I'd like you to flow every word of this" fast. I will shout 'clear' a lot if needed.
I'm originally Policy, so I'd prefer to have any procedural jargon explained to me. I'm aware that LD is philosophy-heavy by design, so I'm a lot more lenient with K's here. I do not want to hear your font size theory.
Most of the above applies where relevant; one thing I do think is important is that voters in the FF speeches be tied into a broader explanation of "Why We Win if We Win What We Win." Too often I see voters just brought up as independent sentences with not enough relation to each other.
Most of the above applies where relevant. Do not use pre-prepared arguments. If I catch you using canned material, I will probably drop you and tank your speaks.
Please take Points of Information. If the tournament uses Flex Time rules, I will treat Flex as if it were Cross-Ex + prep. Flex is a supplement for POIs, not a substitute. I understand limiting POIs to prevent abuse, however, if you take less than three, it will cost you speaker points.
Parli is not designed to handle the K due to limited prep. Reading Kritiks or other pre-prepared arguments in Parli is a transparent tactic to create a prep skew and I'm not sure why this isn't more widely recognized. If you read a K in front of me, I will probably drop you and give you low speaks to disincentivize reading them.
Most judges don't have paradigms for speech, but I like to include one just in case. In the same sense that debaters are expected to adapt to speech judges, I think speechies should be able to adapt to debate judges, particularly in LP events. I put argumentation and analysis over performance for LPs and most PAs, though both are important for ADS. Interps will be a more even mix, since they are clearly intended to be performance-focused. That said, you need to make sure your argument is coherent, sourced, and relevant to society, with a clear tie-in to your piece. Competitors who are able to do this well will score significantly better with me.
I understand that the risk of a forfeit can often deter ethics challenges, so I will not hesitate to enforce the rules if I catch someone cheating myself. If I find out that you are cheating, I will drop you, give you zero speaker points, report you to Tab, and attempt to warn your opponents in future rounds at the tournament. Follow the rules, please.