Ashton Smith Paradigm

Last changed 10/28 6:53P EDT

Ashton Smith, second year undergraduate student at the University of Michigan

Background:
I debated four years in High School at Maine East in Park Ridge, IL on the national circuit and I currently debate for the University of Michigan. As a debater, most of my experience has been reading "policy"-oriented arguments. My senior year of high school, I advanced to octofinals of the Tournament of Champions. I’ve spent lots of my time in high school reading "kritikal" literature, but less experienced in its application to debate.

I know minimal things about this high school topic but I did work at the University of Michigan debate camp as a lab leader for MNDI.


General notes:
-- I'm a technical, flow-oriented judge who will attempt to adjudicate the debate with as minimal intervention as possible on my part. Dropped arguments are (usually) true arguments. I appreciate tricky concessions that interact with other parts of the debate.
-- I think case-focused debates are the most interesting debates. I love impact turns and I think in-depth case analysis can substantially help negative strategies and affirmative wins against off case positions.
-- Put me in the email chain: ashtonalsmith@gmail.com

SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS
TOPICALITY—
I consider myself a good judge for T. I really enjoy technical, well-defended interpretations of the topic. Case lists and arguments on what various interpretations would allow/not allow are very important. I’m persuaded by reasonability as an alternative to offense/defense evaluation of topicality debates. I do not immediately view any interpretation with a limits standard as the best interpretation for any topic.

DISADVANTAGES—
Intelligent story telling with good evidence and analysis is something I like to hear. I generally will vote for teams that have better comparative impact analysis (i.e. they take into account their opponents’ arguments in their analysis). I think it is possible to reduce risk to zero or close enough to it based on defensive arguments.

COUNTERPLANS—
Counterplans are good and strategic. Read them. Debate them. I do have some issues with some PICs, Process CPs and other questionably justifiable positions.

KRITIKS—
I really enjoy well-articulated kritiks that directly interact with the affirmative. I enjoy kritiks most when they’re read against kritikal affirmatives. In order to win, the negative must establish a clear story about 1) what the K is; 2) how it links; 3) what the impact is at either the policy level or: 4) pre-fiat (to the extent it exists) outweighs policy arguments or other affirmative impacts. Don’t just assume I will vote to reject their evil discourse, advocacy, lack of ontology, support of biopolitics, etc. Without an explanation I will assume a K is a very bad non-unique Disad in the policy realm. If you can make specific applications (in contrast to they use the state vote negative), or better yet, read specific critical evidence to the substance of the affirmative, I will be much more likely to vote for you.

PLANLESS AFFIRMATIVES—
Honestly, probably best not to pref me if this is your style. I’ve spent the majority of negative debates against K affs going for T/Framework. I also personally believe that debate is a game. Therefore, there’s a greater chance that I’ll vote for framework in these debate because I evaluate questions of topicality prior to aff solvency. It is possible to beat T/FW in front of me if you have a well-articulated reason why debate isn't just a game or have in-round offense that's separate from "the 1AC was good".  Other ways to beat framework in front of me include 1) Why I should focus on the affirmative first, even though it’s not within the resolution 2) Why discussions about the impact you probably don’t solve is more important than the education we get in debate. I think counter-interpretations can be VERY strategic by kritikal affirmatives to beat framework. USE THEM.

THEORY—
I’ve developed a liking for theoretical arguments over the years. I’m least persuaded by “conditionality bad” if there are 3 or less conditional positions. When evaluating counterplan, I’m most persuaded by theory when there is not a solvency advocate for the counterplan. I believe that the existence of literature on a topic is important for affirmative preparation.
I also believe that Plan-inclusive Kritiks are probably bad but it’s not an immediate Affirmative ballot. I’ll evaluate both PIKs bad debates and framework on whatever happens in a specific debate.


Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/30/2019 POL B-F Classic ABZ MW Classic EGW BB Neg Neg on a 2-1
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/30/2019 POL Octos HJLPPW SB K-Lab SF Neg Neg on a 3-0
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/30/2019 POL Double HJLPPW SB HMMK LK Aff Aff on a 3-0
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/30/2019 POL R4 K-Lab BL CCMWP TS Aff
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/30/2019 POL R3 HJLPPW BB FFPSVZ CR Neg
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/30/2019 POL R3 CCMWP CF CCMWP FW Neg
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/30/2019 POL R2 HMMK DH FFPSVZ HS Aff
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/30/2019 POL R1 Classic HJO GC FFPSVZ RW Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX Final Montgomery Bell BH New Trier AK Aff Aff on a 3-0
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX Quarte Kent Denver HS Montgomery Bell BH Neg Neg on a 3-0
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX Octos Glenbrook North KP Chattahoochee JN Aff Aff on a 2-1
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX Double Edgemont SS Niles North LI Neg Neg on a 3-0
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX R7 Montgomery Bell HR New Trier AK Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX R6 Carrollton Sacred Heart DP Niles North LI Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 NCX R2 Glenbrook South KL Niles North AU Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX R1 Northside MR Glenbrook North JR Aff
Northern Illinois District Tournament 3/3/2018 CX R6 Glenbrook North KR Niles West SG Neg Neg on a 3-0
Northern Illinois District Tournament 3/3/2018 CX R5 Glenbrook South BY Niles West SG Neg Neg on a 3-0
Northern Illinois District Tournament 3/3/2018 CX R3 Niles North LL Niles West BC Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 11/1/2017 VCX Semis Niles North WI Montgomery Bell BJ Aff Neg on a 2-1
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 11/1/2017 VCX Quarte Montgomery Bell BJ Glenbrook North FF Aff Aff on a 2-1
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 11/1/2017 VCX Double Northside CP KS Niles West BF Neg Neg on a 3-0
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 11/1/2017 VCX R7 New Trier KE Iowa City West JW Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 11/1/2017 VCX R6 Glenbrook South GS Glenbrook North FF Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 11/1/2017 VCX R5 Jones CP RC Niles West GS Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 11/1/2017 VCX R4 Hawken TG New Trier AK Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 11/1/2017 VCX R3 H.H. Dow SM New Trier CP Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 11/1/2017 VCX R2 Whitmer IZ Northside CP HL Neg
Michigan Summer Institutes 8/1/2017 POL Double AFKKMM FM BFHHR JL Neg Neg on a 3-0
Michigan Summer Institutes 8/1/2017 POL R6 HJPPV DN McCaffrey/Zuckerman JK Aff
Michigan Summer Institutes 8/1/2017 POL R5 FFRSV LW Oddo/Walrath PR Aff
Michigan Summer Institutes 8/1/2017 POL R3 BCPPR RY CFJ NW Aff
Michigan Summer Institutes 8/1/2017 POL R2 BCPPR BC McCaffrey/Zuckerman BT Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/26/2016 VCX Semis Glenbrook North JL Westminster Schools BH Neg Aff on a 2-1
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/26/2016 VCX Quarte Niles West GB Glenbrook North JL Aff Neg on a 2-1
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/26/2016 VCX Octos Carrollton BG New Trier BW Neg Neg on a 3-0
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/26/2016 VCX Double West Des Moines Valley HD Montgomery Bell HB Neg Neg on a 2-1
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/26/2016 VCX R7 Wayzata MJ West Des Moines Valley HD Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/26/2016 VCX R6 Edina WR New Trier JM Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/26/2016 JRR R5 Pine Crest Preparatory Tomchin & Vlessing Niles West Beutelspacher & Chan Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/26/2016 VCX R5 New Trier KS Iowa City ZT Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/26/2016 VCX R4 Northside HZ New Trier BW Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/26/2016 VCX R3 Niles West GB West Des Moines Valley GC Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/26/2016 VCX R2 New Trier GN Northside KE Neg