Bobby Phillips ParadigmLast changed 10/13 4:07P CST
Put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org (yes I know). If the tourney doesn't allow it, I won't tell on you for having one.
TLDR I debate at Wichita State in college. I am a junior. I'm more of a policy person. I will vote on framework, I will vote for an aff without a plan. Probably more willing than most to listen to cheating neg strategies but I don't like process counterplans. I like clash. I guess I am more of a big picture person but that has more to do with your application of big picture things. I still decide debates off of my flow.
***I don't want to use speech drop, just make an email chain****
Quick about me - I debated at Kapaun Mt. Carmel (2018) in high school and am currently a junior debating at Wichita State. I've been a 2n my whole career if that matters. I primarily research and read policy stuff. My involvement with the high school topic is pretty limited, but I can probably figure things out. I won't know much about debate trends in the topic.
I have some LD stuff at the bottom.
- I try to hold myself to the same standard I expect out of judges when I am debating. I care a lot about debate and think it's an amazing activity. I cannot promise that I will always make the best decision possible, but I can promise that I will put as much effort as possible into that decision. Debates are hard and stressful and I don't think that asking a lot of questions constitutes "charging the mound." I get frustrated with decisions too and will do my best to help you work through that but at some point you just end up burning a lot of your own energy on something you cannot change. I won't take a post round personally.
- I care about quality of evidence and who wrote your card can matter a lot to me. Cards that are qualified but don't make an argument are still bad cards.
- Read your framing page, but please answer the DA too.
- If you clip you lose.
-I feel like people get lost in the "20 uniqueness cards therefore risk of a link outweighs" thing. 1% risk of a link with 100% uniqueness is still 1% risk of a DA
-Politics - Big fan. These debates, at there best, are usually about evidence quality. Strait turns are underrated - this goes for all DAs
- Big disad debates are great but can get messy. If their advantage is just a link turn to a DA, it's usually less messy to read the DA on the advantage.
- Read em, maybe a lot of them. Be bold, re-cut their cards, read lots of planks, do whatever, if you can defend it.
- Since I don't know much about the topic as far as the activity is concerned, I probably won't really have an opinion on "x counterplan is too good." This just means you need to give me a bit of an illustration of why it is so scary. My initial thought to "it beats our aff" is that you should make a better aff. If there is a real problem with it, I need more explanation than "it's hard to answer." I also feel like high school topics have been really lacking in neg ground recently and it might be hard to convince me the most common neg generic is bad.
- Judge kick is a thing that I find difficult to deal with. I think it's probably implied by condo, but it's a lot less stressful for me if say it in the block. I try to avoid bringing my own thoughts into debate, but not having an argument happen until the 2nr makes that really difficult.
-Limits are not an impact alone - explain what affs they include and why those are bad. Abstractly limits can have an impact but are much better when contextualized - affs need to be more willing to say limits bad.
-fairness is pretty great, in T debates with plans I don't think it's too hard to win that it is the most important.
-I don't usually understand what argument people are even making when they say reasonability, but if you make it persuasive I guess I could vote on it.
- I am pretty convinced condo is good. If they drop it then it's bad but don't make it the A strat. 1ars are usually way too light on this debate anyway.
- I don't think you need to answer "x counterplan is bad" if you are kicking the counterplan. I probably won't flow it, so I appreciate the break ig.
- Most of my thoughts about these are in my thoughts below, but a few general things: I tend to look for substantive things I can identify as a "thesis" of the aff. This usually comes in the form of how you solve something. If I cannot figure out that fundamental question, I will be struggling to sort anything out. You can really take whatever angle on form or content you want, but I need to have something to explain in an RFD.
Framework / neg vs Ks
- I actually really like framework debates. Everyone has a bias about this stuff and I guess if I had to take a side I would be more neg, but I vote aff in these debates more than even I thought I would.
- I am pretty sure it's topical to abolish prisons. This sounds like a hard TVA for a lotta affs to answer but not a complete game over for K affs.
- Fairness can "be an impact." I don't exactly know what people are saying half the time when they say it's only an internal link. It matters to me that I adjudicate debates fairly. I think games should be fair and it might even be the most important part of a game. These are debates to be had and you should have them. I know everyone complains about judges being ideological in these debates but you all need to be willing to get into some substance too. FW debates that literally never go beyond "debate is a game so it should be fair" with the response "fairness is just an internal link" will result in me being frustrated and probably someone getting a decision they will hate.
- Things like clash seem like more strategic arguments then learning about the government is good.
- TVAs can do a lot of work, but you have to explain it. Reading a card about an aff impact is not a TVA. I think discussions of how they can solve aff education arguments on framework are more persuasive than how they can solve the aff. This is also a note for aff teams.
- If you are going for a K, I would say that I'm pretty sympathetic to the neg on what exactly meets the standards of competition. That being said, the aff should still probably get perms even if this is a "method debate." I feel like more things than just the advocacy statement can be grounds for competition. Cards you read, ideas you support, and impact claims you make could definitely be a reason the alt is exclusive with the aff. I know this seems like a double standard with policy affs, but really you advocate a lot more than a ten word statement.
- I think neg teams spend a lot of time focusing on having a link and answering the perm (as they should) but forget about a real impact story. A small risk of a link isn't that important if there is no real impact to it. I feel like links should just be DAs to the aff and need a meaningful impact beyond "makes the perm harder."
Ks vs policy affs
- The alt is very important to me. How does it solve your links. If it doesn't then you probably don't have a unique disad to the aff. Solve stuff and we should be good. Links turning case can be great, but if you can't solve it you're just asking me to vote for defense to the advantage.
-Links seem to generally be the most important part of these debates for me. An impact overview at the top of the 2nc doesn't really explain why the links matter. Give each link an impact story. Shotgunning 12 links isn't going to result in no perm if the aff drops one. Tell me what they did, why its bad or turns their other stuff, and why it's more important than the aff.
- I think the aff should get their aff. Even if other considerations are important, I don't know how the aff could ever win if they get none of their offense. I think it will a pretty hard to get me to think differently on this one. Framework is really just a question of what matters more, not if they get to imagine the aff happens or not.
- perms are an aff argument. They can solve a lot of links.
This is not my forte. I did a decent amount of LD in high school, but it was mostly in Kansas. I would approach me as a more policy focused judge who will have some experience with what you are talking about. If you do more traditional LD stuff that's cool, it's what I am more familiar with in this activity. I also probably have seen any K you might read in a debate from policy. I have some of my general thoughts about this format below, but I am very willing to listen to the opposite.
I don't think I struggle with the substance of what either team says very much, but application and how people evaluate things are subtly different than what I am used to. Do not be afraid to take a moment, look me in the eyes, and be like "this is how this works" I might need it.
- Being aff seems really hard. This means that I probably am more easily convinced conditionality is bad in LD than policy. That being said, I really don't want to vote on an RVI to T. I'll do it, maybe, but I won't be happy about it.
-Every LD debate I have judged has done impact calc differently. Sometimes people read like a value and a criterion. Sometimes they wait until the 1ar. Sometimes the aff reads a value and the neg pretends it does not exist. My read of this situation is that there are some ideological differences in how people think this stuff should be done. I have zero investment in this, I just want you to tell my why your stuff matters more than your opponents. Clash is king in any format.
- Some things you might do may seem a little weird on face to me. One off Kant is not something I have debated much so maybe spend a bit more time explaining the FW debate to me. I will also not know what the classic answers to the perm and such will be. Comparing everything to the Nazis is kinda annoying and weird.