Conor Cameron
ccameron3@cps.edu
he/him/his
Coach, Solorio, 2012 - present

TLDR: Better for CP / DA / impact turn debates

I'll do my best to evaluate arguments as made.  When the way I make sense of a debate differs from the way debaters make sense of a debate, here seem to be some common sources of the disparity:

1) I'm pretty ingrained in the offense defense model.  This means that even if the NB is dumb, if the aff cannot generate a solvency deficit against the CP, and the aff has no offense against the DA, I am highly likely to vote negative.  

Some notes: a) I do not think a solvency deficit needs to be carded; b) more difficult, but I could envision voting on analytic offense against a DA, c) I'm willing to vote on zero risk of the DA, but we'd both benefit from you taking a moment to explain why the offense-defense model is inapplicable in the debate at hand

2) I still think I have a relatively high bar for voting negative on topicality; however, I've tried to begin evaluating this debate more from an offense-defense perspective.  In my mind, this means that if the affirmative does not meet the negative's interpretation, and does not have its own counterinterpretation, it is essentially arguing that any affirmative is topical and is conceding a 100% link to the limits disadvantage.  I'm highly likely to vote negative in such a debate.  

General argument notes:
3) I'm probably more sympathetic to cheaty process counterplans than most.  

4) While I may complain, I do vote on the standard canon of negative kritiks.  Things like cap, security, standard topic kritiks, etc. are fine.  Extra explanation (examples, stories, analogies, etc.) is always appreciated, all the more so the further from my comfort zone you venture.

5) FW vs K Affs: I lean negative.  However, I judge few of these debates.  Both teams would benefit from accepting that I know very little here, slowing down, speaking clearly, and over-explaining (depth, not repetition) things you assume most judges know.  

Other notes
6) I judge because:
a) I still really enjoy debate.
b) Judging is an opportunity to continue to develop my understanding of debate.
c) I am covering my students' judge commitment so that they too can benefit from this activity.

7) Quick reference
Policy---X------------------------------------------K

Tech-----------------------------X-----------------Truth

Read no cards-------X----------------------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good--X----------------------------Conditionality bad

States CP good----X------------------------------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing-----X------------------------Politics DA not a thing

UQ matters most----------------------X----------Link matters most

Limits----------------------------------X------------Aff ground

Presumption---------------------------------X-----Never votes on presumption

Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev

CX about impacts----------------------------X----CX about links and solvency

Solorio ’21

Any pronouns are coolio.

cesargutierrez.email@gmail.com

If CPS: cgutierrez38@cps.edu

General:

Tech>Truth.

I'll usually vote on anything if well-articulated.

Impact calc is good.

Have fun.

Don't be a jerk.

Clarity over speed.

***Specifics***

Case:

Always important. I do think most teams nowadays are doing less of it. A good 2nr/2ar should always give me a story of what is happening and how I should evaluate it. Overviews are good... just don't forget the line by line. Tell me how the advantage interacts with the disad or kritik and what that means.

Disadvantages:

Love these. I always want a good thorough story of the DA [assume I don't know anything about it]. Turns case should always be there, tell me how your DA interacts with the aff [Don't just be like "Extinction turns the aff", tell me how your impact or Link specifically affects the aff. Blocks are good, just don't rely on them too much. I prefer impact analysis on top instead of an overview. Compare your cards to theirs, "Our card is more recent, qualified, etc...". Every part of the DA is important. You do have to win every part of the DA [Same for Advantages] If they drop a DA [or anything] don't just say "they dropped it", give me a reason why I should care, what does it mean that they dropped it, you get the picture. Link turns case is a really good argument.

Counterplans:

CP and DA is always a good move. Adv cp + impact turn = my fave. You do have to win the net benefit. Won’t vote on a Counterplan without it. 100 planks? Of course. Agent Counterplans are amazing, just make sure to establish competition. Love Pics, the aff does have to win the entire Plan is a good idea. Always remember to answer theory on the CP. Explain how you access the aff's internal links and do the work. Competition determines legitimacy for CPs - if a CP is a legitimate opportunity cost to the aff, aff theory arguments are a bit less persuasive to me.

Topicality:

If you do go for it make sure it's a full 5 minutes. None of this T, CP, and Disad nonsense. Impact out both your standards and theirs. Give me reasons to prefer reasonability and competing interps. Probably need examples of in-round abuse. ASPEC is pure banter. Just don't drop it 2as.

Theory:

This is always an important part of the debate. 3 condo is probably the max. Prove to me why rejecting the team is necessary. If you have to think "is this counterplan shady/cheating". It probably is.

Kritiks:

I find them interesting, explain your theory of power, philosophy, etc. Explain the alt very clear, and how it resolves the impact to the K. I am most familiar in the following, Cap/Neolib, Security, Settler Colonialism, Ableism. Links specific to the aff are amazing. [It has to be why the aff links and not the squo]. Long overviews? Sure why not but don’t just read it and be like “Line by line, done above, done above, done above”. Framework is important, don't undercover this in rebuttals. The vague alt argument isn't very convincing unless made iffy in CX. The alt needs to solve case, establish root cause claims. Not my Baudrillard < Yes, its your Baudrillard.

K Affs:

"Good luck to you" - Conor Cameron 2019.

Misc:

Roadmaps [This is copied from Argent Martinez’s paradigm who copied it from John Tao's paradigm—I agree with them both]

Please. There are four things I've been seeing that drive me absolutely insane - and apparently there's enough for me to even write about it.

1) Roadmapping the 1AC. Don't do it. It's not necessary. It's not a thing.

2) Asking if I want a roadmap. The answer is YES. The answer is always YES (with the exception of the 1AC, because, once again, don't do it).

3) 1NC roadmap - just tell me how many off, and then where you plan on going on. Don't tell me what the Off cases are, that's not necessary.

4) Roadmap by being clear and concise: "DA, K, Case in order of solvency then advantage one." Do not roadmap: "I'm going to go a little bit on solvency, and then maybe the K...and if I have time maybe the DA...."

Important:

Don't be a douchebag. If you are ableist, sexist, racist, etc. I will vote you down on the spot.

Last update: 2/11/2020

TOP-LEVEL:

-TLDR: do what you do best, and if you do it well, I’ll try my best to be fair, receptive, and interested

-Add me to the email chain: gordon.kochman@gmail.com

-I try not to read evidence if I can help it, which means I won’t open your speech docs until the end of the round, and I’ll only do so if needed. I won't follow you in the speech doc, so if you're gonna blaze through your theory block, you might want to reconsider.

-I try to keep a straight face during speeches. If I'm being expressive, then something horrible/funny/important/etc. just happened.

-Please be kind to each other

-My last name is pronounced “coach-man,” but you can refer to me as Gordon. Whatever you do, PLEASE do not call me "judge."

ABOUT ME:

-My debate experience: I debated for four years at New Trier High School (2009-2013) and for two years at Whitman College (2013-2015) while the team existed during my tenure. I’m a former 2N/1A. I’ve been involved in coaching and judging since I graduated high school. I'm a lawyer in my day job.

-Affiliations: New Trier High School, Whitman College, University of Wisconsin, Homestead High School

-Co-founder of the Never Spark Society with Tim Freehan

-I mostly debated policy arguments and soft-left K arguments. I fully understand how these arguments are bad and boring in their own way, so simply because I debated these arguments in the past does not mean that I think they’re the best, most interesting, or correct arguments. I’m open enough to recognize there are multiple ways of debating and engaging with the resolution, both from my time as a debater and later as a judge and coach.

-Disclaimer: What is included in this paradigm is meant to help you decide where to put me on your pref sheets, strike from your strike card, or adjust your strategy before the round. Most of this paradigm includes my predispositions and (unless otherwise noted) NOT my closely-held beliefs that are firm and unshakable.

NON-NEGOTIABLES:

-Please be kind to each other and don’t be racist, sexist, ableist, or any other variation of rude/intentionally horrible.

-To the extent required, this is a communicative activity that encompasses speech. As a result, I will only flow what you say in your speech (open CX is fine). Unless provided a performative reason, I am not a fan of multiple people participating in a speech or playing a video/audio clip.

-Debate is a game, and I’ve had the pleasure to enjoy it as a game. However, I understand that debate is more than that for some people (it’s how they afford their education, it’s their job, it’s their community, etc.). I try to comport myself such that everyone can have the experience in this activity that is enjoyable. Simply because I have enjoyed debate in one way does not mean that other debaters need to conform to my experience.

-There are obvious formalities in a round that exist no matter what. These include: one team must win, speaker points must be awarded, etc.

GENERAL DEBATE PREDISPOSITIONS:

-Tech over truth in the abstract and to a point. Generally, the more “true” your claim is, the less tech you need to win it (and vice-versa). The same goes for how big of a claim you’re making. The bigger the claim, the more work that’s needed. It’s gonna take more than a one-liner to win a claim that a mindset shift occurs post-economic collapse. Arguments are claims with warrants. One-line conclusory statements aren’t gonna cut it if you don’t provide a warrant.

-Things I likely won’t vote for: I would recommend that you use your common sense here. If your argument is overtly and/or intentionally racist/sexist/homophobic/etc., then you might want to reconsider. Not only do I not want to be in those rounds, but I don’t think the team you’re opposing wants those arguments in the round, either. As a co-founder of the Never Spark Society, this might tip you off to some types of arguments I don't enjoy...

PREDISPOSITIONS REGARDING SPECIFIC AREAS OF DEBATE:

-My thoughts regarding "non-topical" affs are probably what most people want to know up-front. I never read these affs when I debated and would spend a large amount of time planning how to debate these affs, but as a judge, I don’t really harbor any animus towards these affs. I don’t think that my thoughts here should be dispositive one way or another in these rounds. If you win your argument and explain why that means you win the round, then you should win. Despite my following thoughts on topicality versus policy affs, I'm SIGNIFICANTLY less persuaded by procedural arguments on framework than by method-based arguments on framework. In other words, I'm less likely to vote on "fairness" than an argument about how we should engage with the state or try to produce change.

-Topicality (versus policy affs) is about competing interpretations of the topic. This also means that potential abuse is a sufficient reason to vote neg on T. I would extend T into the block in a majority of my rounds and think I have a relatively lower threshold for voting on T against policy affs than most judges.

-I tend to lean neg on most theory and default to rejecting the argument unless provided a reason to reject the team. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a winnable argument, and there are certainly theory arguments that are stronger than others (conditionality is significantly more viable than no neg fiat, for instance). Regardless, this shouldn’t deter you from using these arguments on the aff. As a former 2N I do have a proclivity to protect the 2NR, so be absolutely certain that your 2AR will be an extrapolation of 1AR arguments if this is your ultimate strategy.

-Most CPs are fine, with a few exceptions. Consult CPs, for instance, are probably bad. I'm fine with CPs that have internal net-benefits to generate competition. I can be persuaded by perm do the CP args on the aff.

-Is the politics DA a thing? Eh, probably not (RIP). Will I vote for it anyway? Absolutely.

-Regarding Ks, I would read soft-left Ks with a general policy strategy and go for them on occasion. I’m by no means an expert in any specific K literature. I’m not very familiar with a ton of high-theory or postmodern arguments, so your burden to explain them is relevant. The more “out there” K you plan to read, the more explanation you’ll need. I should be familiar with your argument at a basic level regardless of what you read, but it is unlikely that I understand the nuances of your specific argument unless you can explain them to me. If you’re curious if you should read your K this round or how much work you should put into your explanation/overview, I would recommend reading it with more explanation rather than less. If you can adequately explain why you should win as a result of the K, then you should win.

-I’m a huge proponent of impact turns, which unfortunately aren’t as utilized as I’d like. However, I’m not a fan of some impact turns like spark (lol), wipeout, etc.

Updated 9-26-2013

Kevin McCaffrey

Assistant Debate Coach Glenbrook North 2014-
Assistant Debate Coach Berkeley Preparatory School 2010-2014
Assistant Debate Coach University of Miami 2007-2009
Assistant Debate Coach Gulliver Preparatory School 2005-2010

I feel strongly about both my role as an impartial adjudicator and as an educator – situations where these roles come into conflict are often where I find that I have intervened. I try to restrain myself from intervening in a debate, but I make mistakes, and sometimes find myself presented with two options which seem comparably interventionary in different ways, often due to underarticulated argumentation. This effort represents a systematic effort to identify the conditions under which I am more or less likely to intervene unconsciously. I try to keep a beginner’s mind and approach every debate round as a new learning opportunity, and I do usually learn at least one new thing every round – this is what I like most about the activity, and I’m at my best when I remember this and at my worst when I forget it.

My default paradigm is that of a policy analyst – arguments which assume a different role (vote no, performance) probably require more effort to communicate this role clearly enough for me to understand and feel comfortable voting for you. I don’t really have a very consistent record voting for or against any particular positions, although identity- and psychology-based arguments are probably the genres I have the least experience with and I’m not a good judge for either.

Rather, I think you’re most interested in the situations in which I’m likely to intervene – and what you can do to prevent it – this has much less to do with what arguments you’re making than it does with how you’re making them:

Make fewer arguments, and explain their nature and implication more thoroughly:

My unconscious mind carries out the overwhelming majority of the grunt work of my decisions – as I listen to a debate, a mental map forms of the debate round as a cohesive whole, and once I lose that map, I don’t usually get it back. This has two primary implications for you: 1) it’s in your interest for me to understand the nuances of an argument when first presented, so that I can see why arguments would be more or less responsive as or before they are made in response 2) debates with a lot of moving parts and conditional outcomes overload my ability to hold the round in my mind at once, and I lose confidence in my ability to effectively adjudicate, having to move argument by argument through each flow after the debate – this increases the chances that I miss an important connection or get stuck on a particular argument by second-guessing my intuition, increasing the chances that I intervene.

I frequently make decisions very quickly, which signals that you have done an effective job communicating and that I feel I understand all relevant arguments in the debate. I don’t believe in reconstructing debates from evidence, and I try to listen to and evaluate evidence as it's being read, so if I am taking a long time to make a decision, it’s probably because I doubt my ability to command the relevant arguments and feel compelled to second-guess my understanding of arguments or their interactions, a signal that you have not done an effective job communicating, or that you have inadvertently constructed an irresolveable decision calculus through failure to commit to a single path to victory.

In short, I make much better decisions when you reduce the size of the debate at every opportunity, when you take strategic approaches to the debate which are characterized by internally consistent logic and assumptions, and when you take time to explain the reasoning behind the strategic decisions you are making, and the meta-context for your arguments. If your approach to debate strategy depends upon overloading the opponent’s technical capabilities, then you will also likely overload my own, and if your arguments aren't broadly compatible with one another, then I may have difficulty processing them when constructing the big picture. I tend to disproportionately reward gutsy all-in strategic decisions. As a side note, I probably won’t kick a counterplan for you if the other team says just about anything in response, you need to make a decision.

Value proof higher than rejoinder:

I am a sucker for a clearly articulated, nuanced story, supported by thorough discussion of why I should believe it, especially when supported by high-quality evidence, even in the face of a diversity of poorly articulated or weak arguments which are only implicitly answered. Some people will refer to this as truth over tech – but it’s more precisely proof over rejoinder – the distinction being that I don’t as often reward people who say things that I believe, but rather reward fully developed arguments over shallowly developed or incomplete arguments. There have been exceptions – a dropped argument is definitely a true argument – but a claim without data and a warrant is not an argument. Similarly, explicit clash and signposting are merely things which help me prevent myself from intervening, not hard requirements. Arguments which clash still clash whether a debater explains it or not, although I would strongly prefer that you take the time to explain it, as I may not understand that they clash or why they clash in the same way that you do.

My tendency to intervene in this context is magnified when encountering unfamiliar arguments, and also when encountering familiar arguments which are misrepresented, intentionally or unintentionally. As an example, I am far more familiar with positivist studies of international relations than I am with post-positivist theorizing, so debaters who can command the distinctions between various schools of IR thought have an inherent advantage, and I am comparably unlikely to understand the nuances of the distinctions between one ethical philosopher and another. I am interested in learning these distinctions, however, and this only means you should err on the side of explaining too much rather than not enough.

A corollary is that I do believe that various arguments can by their nature provide zero risk of a link (yes/no questions, empirically denied), as well as effectively reduce a unique risk to zero by making the risk equivalent to chance or within the margin of error provided by the warrant. I am a sucker for conjunctive/disjunctive probability analysis, although I think assigning numerical probabilities is almost never warranted.

Incomprehensible value systems:

One special note is that I have a moderate presumption against violence, whether physical or verbal or imaginary – luckily for me, this has yet to seriously present itself in a debate I have judged. But I don’t think I have ever ended up voting for a pro-death advocacy, whether because there are more aliens than humans in the universe, or because a thought experiment about extinction could change the way I feel about life, or because it’s the only path to liberation from oppression. While I’d like to think I can evaluate these arguments objectively, I’m not entirely sure that I really can, and if advocating violence is part of your argument, I am probably a bad judge for you, even though I do believe that if you can’t articulate the good reasons that violence and death are bad, then you haven’t adequately prepared and should probably lose.

Email me:

I like the growing practice of emailing flows and debriefing at the end of a day or after a tournament – feel free to email me: kmmccaffrey at gmail dot com. It sometimes takes me a while to fully process what has happened in a debate round and to understand why I voted the way I did, and particularly in rounds with two very technical, skilled opponents, even when I do have a good grasp of what happened and feel confident in my decision, I do not always do a very good job of communicating my reasoning, not having time to write everything out, and I do a much better job of explaining my thinking after letting my decision sit for a few hours. As such, I am very happy to discuss any decision with anyone in person or by email – I genuinely enjoy being challenged – but I am much more capable and comfortable with written communication than verbal.

Niles West '14

UIUC '18

I coach for Niles West debate and have for the past 6 years. I have coached and judged in every level from novice to elimination rounds in varsity divisions. I have also coached and judged on local, regional, and national circuits.

Yes, I would like to be sent speech docs but I will not be flowing off of them --- elipre@d219.org

I debated for three years for Niles West and one year at Michigan State University on the legalization topic. My experience in debate is 50/50 policy and K.

I would like to emphasize that I am totally down for the K as much as I am totally down for a policy debate.

First and foremost: I do not allow my preconceived notions about certain types of arguments affect my decision-making. I view debate as an activity that develops critical thinking and advocacy skills, so do that in whatever way you think is best suited for your situation (granted that it is respectful and not offensive).

Certain arguments:

FYI: dropped arguments are not true arguments --- whoever makes the argument has the burden of proof.

T – love a good T debate. compare interpretations and evidence adequately. the impact level is the most important to me in T debates, and you should be comparing standards/impacts. don't forget the internal link debate. fairness is an impact in and of itself.

DAs – are essential to a good debate I think. impact calc and overviews are important. think we can all agree on that.

Ks and Framework – I love the K, I went for it a lot in high school. they are good for debate *if they answer the affirmative*. Please engage the affirmative. This entails making specific link arguments as well as thorough turns case analysis. I am probably familiar with your literature, however, I will not weigh your buzzwords more than logical aff arguments against your K. If you want my ballot, you need to first and foremost TALK ABOUT THE AFF. Read specific links to the aff’s representations and impacts, not just to the topic in general.

The link debate is crucial – and the aff should recognize if the neg is not doing an adequately specific job explaining their link story. Additionally, you need to make turns case arguments. I will not be compelled by a mere floating pik in the 2NR – that’s cheating. Give me analysis about why the aff reifies its own impacts. Absent this, I usually default to weighing the 1AC heavily against the K.

Relating to framework, I have a high threshold for interpretations that limit out critiques entirely. I would rather see debaters interact with the substance of the criticism than talk shallowly about fairness and predictability (especially if it is a common argument). A lot of the times, framework debates are lazy.

Planless affs: Totally down for them, especially on the criminal justice system reform topic. Perhaps they could be read on the neg, but that does not mean that they should not be read on the aff. This is good news if you are negative going for framework because switch side debate probably solves a lot of aff offense if there is a topical version of the aff. This is also good news for the aff because I can just as likely be persuaded that the reading of your aff in the debate space creates something unique (i.e., whatever you are solving for). A policy action, whether or not it's done by the federal government, should be a priority for the aff to defend. Please just do something that gives the negative a role in the debate. SLOW DOWN on taglines if they are paragraphs.

***

Meta things:

1. Clarity (important for online debate) - I've changed my stance on this since online debate became a thing. Still definitely say words. Sending analytics in speech doc and/or slowing down on analytics 1) helps me which is, in turn, good for you and 2) (at worst) facilitates clash because your opponents can also hear and know what you are saying, which is also good for everyone educationally!

Ideally I would not have to work too hard to hear what you are saying. I am bad at multitasking, so if I’m working too hard I’ll probably miss an argument or two. Please enunciate tag lines especially. If I can’t decipher your answer to an argument, I will consider it dropped.

2. Be respectful – yes, debate is a competitive activity, but it is also an academic thought exercise. I encourage assertiveness and confidence in round, but if you are rude, I will reduce your speaker points. Rudeness includes excessively cutting your opponent off or talking over them in cross-ex, excessively interrupting your partner's speech to prompt them, being unnecessarily snarky towards your opponents, etc. Please just be nice :)

3. Logic - a lot of times, debaters get wrapped up in the technicality of their debates. While tech is important, it shouldn’t come at the expense of doing things like explaining your arguments, pointing out logical flaws in your opponents’ arguments, and telling me how I should evaluate a particular flow in the context of the whole debate. I tend to reward teams that provide consistent, clear, and smart meta-level framing issues – it makes my job 100 times easier, and it minimizes the extent to which I have to intervene to decide the debate. I will not do work for you on an argument even if I am familiar with it – I judge off of my flow exclusively.

4. DO NOT assume that I am following along on the speech doc as you are giving a speech, because I am probably not.

5. Trolly arguments will probably get you low speaks and some eyerolls. Debate is an educational activity. By my standards, "trolly" includes timecube, xenos paradox, turing tests, etc. Y'all are smart people. I think you catch my drift here.

Niles West High School 2014-2018

Trinity University 2018-Now

Last Updated: November 2021

Email: nasim978@gmail.com (please put me on the email chain)

Zoom Update

- Please, please, please, again, PLEASE be clear. Honestly, just go slower even. It is so hard to understand sometimes over zoom because your voice gets distorted.

Top Level

I'm open to all arguments as long as they're not morally reprehensible. I did policy throughout all of high school, but that's only because I wasn't familiar with critique literature. I would have definitely read a k aff if I knew how to. So you can read whatever you want in front of me. I'm going to try my best to evaluate every single debate fairly. There are ways you can help me with this!

- Don't use acronyms! I'm not familiar with the topic and might have no idea what you're talking about.

- Don't spread through analytics. This doesn't mean you shouldn't spread. If you're going for an argument that requires a lot of explanation, I want to make sure I can write everything down on my flow and use it to make a fair decision. It's been a couple of years, and I'm not as good at flowing as I was before.

- Don't assume I always know what you're talking about. I'm familiar with most arguments, but I don't want to vote you down because I misunderstood something.

Important ways I evaluate debates

- I don't vote on cards alone. Explanation of an argument will get you way farther than an extra card. Debate is an argumentative activity. You need to explain why you're winning. I won't reward a team for reading a ton of cards and expecting me to just read them after the debate. If I can't figure out a way to evaluate the debate on my flow, I'll resort to evidence to determine the round.

- I'm 50/50 on tech vs. truth. If you explain why one matters more than the other, then I'll evaluate the debate that way. Tell me how I should evaluate the round, and I'll do that.

- I'll only read cards after the debate that I think are relevant to my decision. If there are cards you want me to read after the debate, you should extend/reference them in your speech.

- I have literally a million facial expressions during a round. If I'm scrambling to write things down, go a little slower. If I look confused, I'm confused.

CX

Explain everything to me. If a team asks you something generic, and you're going for a complex argument, use that time to make sure I understand what's going on. Keep speaking until they ask you to stop. Feel free to ramble on and explain other parts of the debate that you think are important. Also a great time to explain acronyms or things about the topic that I might not know. However, you should use cross ex as an opportunity to make arguments and use them later on in the debate. You'll probably get higher speaks if you use cross ex well and incorporate it into the debate.

Topicality

These debates are great! I'm not familiar with the topic this year, so I probably won't understand your case lists. That being said, there are other ways to paint a picture of the best version of the topic and still win my ballot.

One thing to note -- the aff can win my ballot on we meet alone, so make sure your violation actually applies.

Neg -- make sure to have an actual impact.

Also, I won't vote on ASPEC. 2A's, you can feel free to just ignore this argument. I'm serious.

Disads

Great! I will reward 2A's who can logically beat a disad. I'm a little different on this than most people (I think). An aff team can win my ballot by simply pointing out logical fallacies in a contrived and weak disad. That being said, this shouldn't encourage you to read zero cards against a disad. For the neg -- if you're reading a contrived disad, I'll be more likely to vote for you on dropped arguments.

Counterplans

Also great! Advantage counterplans are definitely underutilized. Sufficiency framing!!! Frame the debate!!! Tell me why the net benefit outweighs the risk of a solvency deficit. You can read really abusive counterplans, but you better be good at answering theory. If the aff doesn't read theory, you're lucky. If the aff goes for theory, you're in trouble. You can go for theory in front of me, but that shouldn't dissuade you from going for good solvency deficits. I won't kick the counterplan unless you tell me to do it. Status quo = a viable option always means judge kick.

Impact Turns

Read them! I haven't experienced many of these debates, but if you win, you win!

Theory

Sure! I'll vote on it. Not on the neg. Never go for just theory on the neg. I won't vote for you.

K (General Thoughts)

In general, k arguments are very convincing to me. Most of the time, you're right on what you're saying, but that doesn't mean I'm going to vote for you because of it (remember 50/50 tech and truth). Also, I just don't think I'm good at evaluating these debates. For the aff, why does framework mean their links aren't true? Why is their theory of how things work wrong? For the neg, why does winning your theory mean you win the debate? These debates become kind of muddy for me, and often times, I'll have to resort to judge intervention to determine who is right - you don't want this. I don't know how to evaluate framework because both sides usually make arguments about either predictability or reputations, and they all have equal weight, but no one tells me what that means for the rest of their arguments. I'm just not good at evaluating this. You might end up being upset at me after the round, but I warned you I don't know. That being said, I want to judge debates as fairly as I can. You can read any k you want in front of me. Remember that I don't know a lot of k literature, so you'll need to explain more than usual. You'll probably need to slow down here. For example, if you say there's "x disad" on the perm, give me time to write it down before moving on. I won't remember what the disad to the perm is if I don't write down what it means. I won't just vote on buzz words if I can't explain why I voted on it to the other team. Again, I won't vote on buzz words - I need to be able to explain it myself after the round and it's up to you to make sure I know how to do that. ESPECIALLY IN YOUR LAST SPEECH. I don't want to vote you down just because I didn't understand what your argument was, so please explain it. I like specific links, but if they dropped it and you're winning on a generic link, then I'll vote for you.

K affs

Do whatever you want! If you usually read a K aff, don't change it in front of me. I'll evaluate it as fairly as I can but consider reading everything I said above on clarity and explanations.

K vs policy aff

You can definitely read these in front of me! I'm familiar with these debates, since I've had a lot of them. These debates are the ones where explanation is crucial. I'm not familiar with a lot of k literature, so you'll probably need to do more explaining than usual. Please don't spread through analytics in these debates. I need to make sure what every disad on framework means, and to reiterate, I haven't flowed in a while.

K vs k affs

Do what you want. I might have no clue what's going on, but somehow I will form a ballot. Warning - this will likely be a coin toss for me. If you are upset at my decision, again, I warned you. On the plus, you can convince me to vote on anything since I'm not sure how these debates work. If you say "X" means you win, then yeah I guess it does.

Framework

Do whatever you want. I know these debates and will vote on any impact! I do find the debate is a game argument convincing tho.

Fun things:

- I like jokes

- References you can use -- Game of Thrones, Rick and Morty, Westworld, The Witcher, Avatar the Last Airbender, something popular

- If you know people I know in debate, make a funny joke

- Be bold and do risky things

- Some debates don't require a full speech. You can end a speech in 1 minute if they dropped something like topicality. If they drop theory, just make your entire speech about theory and finish early if you want.

Don't do these things

- Attack someone's race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, orientation, identity, etc. I will stop flowing and submit my ballot.

- Be super mean to your partner/opponents

- Overpower your partner during cx

- Say morally reprehensible things

- Expect cards to win you debates with zero explanations

- Clip cards