Joey Fica

I am a former debater and understand how everything works. I don't mind spewing as long as your opponent can clearly understand you. I really love a lot of evidence, but I also like the evidence explained to me in a way it relates to your case. I go into every round pretending I know nothing about the subject, so set a solid foundation, use lots of evidence and explain your evidence. If you can accomplish those things, we will have a great round!

And remember to have fun! You will remember these times fondly.

SUMMARY:

Ks: Yes

Spreading: Yes (Share the file with me)

Theory/Framework: Yes (be able to explain)

CPs/DAs: Yes (CP must have a net benefit you can prove to me)

Topicality: Make sure it applies

Ethics: See below (and please read it thoroughly so there is no confusion!)

Email Chains: Familiar with them, I enjoy.

SpeechDrop: LOVE SpeechDrop. If you can do it this way, I would prefer.

If you have questions: larsen.jm.lucas@gmail.com (please include your name, tournament, and round)

DO NOT PASTE YOUR CARDS IN AN EMAIL. SEND THEM IN A WORD DOC.

BACKGROUND:

I did debate for 3 years in high school, most of it being in CX. I also competed in LD, PF, OO, FX, NX, and Congress. I don't have any achievements to give you because I did not prioritize winning. That being said, I am more versed in theory than I was in high school, so I can grasp most of the concepts you are explaining (just don't assume your opponents nor I know what an ivory tower or the simulacra of knowledge is). I can follow spreading, just please share the (highlighted) file with me so I can make sure to follow along.

A bit about me personally, I like hiking, I really enjoy nature, so I try to get out when I can, I am a Marxist-Leninist (I enjoy communism), I graduated from Sky View High School and am currently in a gap year, so I am not attending college for at least this year. I enjoy Nicki Minaj and Megan Thee Stallion. If you have any other questions you can email me: larsen.jm.lucas@gmail.com

ETHICS:

If you spew racist, transphobic, antisemitic, homophobic, sexist, ableist, (etc) rhetoric in the round, I will give you one warning, and of there is another instance, I drop you. Debate doesn't exist in a vacuum! (Certain egregious errors will make me drop you instantly though. Example: Using the n-word if you are not Black, Calling your opponents slurs, If your whole case is one of those mentioned above)

Don't falsify evidence, we are all better than that :)

DO NOT use evidence that is from anyone like Ben Shapiro. I will not weigh it in the round.

If I am judging you in PF, don't spread. We all know no one is competing in PF to go progressive, and I think at least one area of debate should remain (somewhat) accessible.

I know I mentioned that I am better versed in theory than high school, but that doesn't mean your opponents nor I know what the hell you are talking about when you use inaccessible language.

Please cite your cards always. Your opponents nor I should ever have to ask for a link/author/date to the evidence you are citing.

ARGUMENTS/THINGS I LIKE:

Please Please PLEASE weigh your arguments, the only way you win on impacts is if I actually have a mechanism to vote on. (That being said for me timeframe and magnitude outweigh probability, but that doesn't mean I wont weigh probability so use all the tools available to you. Also it is commonly assumed util is the framework of the round unless something else is read, just to clarify)

I like CP's that are unique and interesting, and actually have net benefits. If you can just replicate the AFF in a different way, there is no reason to vote NEG.

Shaky links make me sad, but as long as your opponents can't/don't attack them, I'll value it.

I don't mind K's that critique the space and search to use their time differently. If you want to change the time structure at all, the other team has to be okay with it and it has to stay within the 1:30 that the round is constrained to

Explain your alts and the mechanism. If your opponents ask how your alt solves and you don't know, I am extremely unlikely to vote for you.

Contact:

Email: larsen.jm.lucas@gmail.com

TL;DR- Competed competitively in high school for three years but have been "out of the loop" for a couple of years. I've only done a few rounds on the topic, so please don't assume too much background knowledge on your cases, even if they are common for this year. Fine with everything, but topicality needs to have in round impacts for me to vote on it. If you're super techy that's fine, but please spell out to me how each of your arguments interact with each other if it gets into an in-depth Framework debate, especially in the rebuttals.

If you have more time to read about me-

Experience: Competed in Policy for thee years at a school in Northern Utah (Sky View High School). I never went to the TOC but I made it to a few bid rounds my Junior and Senior year and got 4th Speaker at NSDA Nats. I almost exclusively read and ran critical arguments (Afro-pessimism primarily) and honestly was never the most techy of debaters, but I can follow and appreciate a good "traditional" round as well. I took two years off after high school and am now a sophomore at Harvard College and generally help coach for the Urban Debate League in Boston.

Affs- Don't really have a preference on if it's topical or not, but I want to know what exactly I'm voting for if I send in an aff ballot (so if that's an advocacy statement or an idea or a narrative, just make sure it's clear to me what the affirmative is AFFIRMING. Or if you don't think you need to affirm something, make sure you clearly lay out why that is and what my ballot does in that case). The narrative of the 1ac should be clear throughout the round, so please have at least case overviews in the 2ac (and if you're reading a traditional case, please extend each of your impact scenarios you plan on going for in each speech).

CP's/DAs- Chill with basically everything. Regardless of my personal opinions on PICS/Severance CPs, it's all good with me until the other team reads theory. Then I'll evaluate that theory based on the in-round impact and the standards presented. Please have a net-benefit, but whether that's internal or external is up to you.

T- If you're going to go for this in the 2nr, please have in round impacts. If not, I highly doubt that I am going to vote for it. Just being honest.

K's- This is more my home, but I have been out of the game for a bit so make sure you clearly explain your links and alternative to me throughout the debate. I expect you to have some sort of framing as well, so that should be presented to me in the block if not earlier. Good K debate isn't about just talking past the Aff team with big words, I want to hear some in-depth analysis on how your K interacts specifically with their aff (not just the topic in general), what the impacts are, how your alternative solves (or doesn't if that's conducive with your literature), etc etc. If I don't understand what I'm voting for or why I'm voting, then I'm not going to do it.

Theory- Unless there has been some very clear abuse, I likely won't make it a voting issue. I'm much more likely to side with a "x justifies y" line of argument where them doing something unfair justifies you doing something unfair as well.

FW- Not the most experienced in this area, but I definitely think it's a viable strategy/thing to include in the round. Just be sure you explain to me what exactly your vision of debate is under your framing, the reasons for preferring that vision, and if it gets really nit-picky than please please flag for me the most important issues/arguments that you are winning, and how winning that point interacts with the remaining points.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before round.

Especially for online debate, slow down a little, particularly from the 2NC on.

Please include Ryanpmorgan1@gmail.com and interlakescouting@googlegroups.com for the email chain. Please use subject lines that make clear what round it is.

I wrote a veritable novel below. I think its mostly useless. I'm largely fine with whatever you want to do.

Top level:

• I am older (36) and this definitely influences how I judge debates.
• Yes, I did policy debate in high school and college. I was mediocre at it.
• Normal nat circuit norms apply to me. Speed is fine, offense/defense calc reigns, some condo is probably good but infinite condo is probably bad, etc.
• I have a harder time keeping up with very dense/confusing debates than a lot of judges. Simplifying things with me is always your best bet.

Areas where I diverge from some nat circuit judges:

• I am more likely to call "nonsense" on your bewildering process CP or Franken K. If the arg doesn't make any sense, you should just tell me that.
• Aff vagueness (and in effect, conditionality) is out of control in modern debate. I will vote on procedural arguments to rectify this trend.
• Bad process CPs are bad and shouldn't be a substitute for cutting cards or developing a real strategy. Obviously, I'll vote on them, but the 2AR that marries perm + theory into a comprehensive model for debate is usually a winner.
• I'm less likely to "rep" out teams or schools. I don't keep track of bid leaders and what not. Related: I forget about most rounds 20 minutes after I turn in my ballot.

Stats:

• Overall Aff win rate: 48.7%
• Elim aff win rate: 42.3%
• I have sat 6 times in 53 elims

Core controversies - I'm pretty open so take these with a grain of salt.

• Unlimited condo | -----X-------- | 2-worlds, maybe
• Affs should be T | ---X----------- | T isn't a voter
• Judge kick | ----X--------- | No judge kick
• "Meme" arguments | --------X- | You better be amazing at "meme" debate
• Research = better speaks | --X--------- | Tech = better speaks
• Speed | -------X---- | Slow down a little
• Inherency is case D | -X--------- | Inherency is a DA thumper

My Knowledge:

• I went for politics DA a lot. Its the only debate thing I'm a genuine expert in, at least in debate terms.
• I do not "get" the topic (inequality) yet. I did not go to camp. Debate like this is Mich finals at your own peril.
• I have some familiarity with the following K lit - cap, Foucault/Agamben, Lacan/psychoanalysis, security, nuclear rhetoric, nihilism, non-violence, and gendered language.
• I'm basically clueless RE: set col / Afropess / Baudrillard / Bataille. I have voted on all of them, though, in the past..

K affs

I prefer topical affs, and I like plan-focused debates. I'm neg-leaning on T-framework in the sense that I think reality leans neg if you actually play out the rationale behind most K affs that are being run in modern debate. But I vote aff about 50% of the time in those debates, so if that's your thing, go for it.

T/cap K/ ballot PIK and the like are boring to me, though. I think that unless the K aff is pure intellectual cowardice, and refuses to take a stand on anything debatable, there are usually better approaches for the neg to take.

I'm a great judge for impact turning K affs - e.g., cap good, state reform good.

Word PIKs are a good way to turn the aff's rejection of T/theory against them.

Or, you could simply, you know, engage the aff's lit base and cut some solvency turns / make a strong presumption argument that engages with the aff's method.

Some other advice:

• "Bad things are bad" is not a very interesting argument. You should have a solvency mechanism.
• Affs should have a "debate key" warrant. That warrant can involve changing the nature of debate, but you should have some reason you are presenting your argument in the context of a debate round.
• I think fairness matters, but its obviously possible to win that other things matter more depending on the circumstances.
• Traditional approaches to T-FW is best with me - very complicated 5th-level args on T are less persuasive to me than a simple and unabashed defense of topicality + switch-side debate = fairness + education. "We can't debate you, and that makes this activity pointless" is usually a win condition for the neg, in my book. St. Marks teams always do a really good job on this in front of me, so idk, emulate them I guess, or steal their blocks.

Topicality against policy affs

I have not read enough into this topic's literature to have a strong opinion on the core controversies.

I think I tend to lean into bigger topics than most modern judges do. That a topic might have dozens of viable affs is not a sign of a bad topic, so long as it incents good scholarship and the neg has ways to win debates if they put in the work.

Speaker points

When deciding speaks, I tend to reward research over technical prowess.

If you are clobbering the other team, slow down and make the debate accessible to them. Running up the score will run down your speaks.

I frequently check my speaker points post-tournament to make sure I'm not an outlier. I am not, as near as I can tell. I probably have a smaller range than average. It takes a LOT to get a 29.3 or above from me, but it also takes a lot for me to go below 28.2 or so.

Ethical violations

I am pretty hands off and usually not paying close enough attention to catch clipping unless it is blatant.

Prep stealing largely comes out of your speaks, unless the other team makes an appeal.

Curtis Wardle

curtiswardle@gmail.com

435-757-6164

TLDR: debate however you would like in front of me. I'll evaluate whatever you give me to the best of my ability.

Speed: 6. If you aren't clear, then it makes my job infinitely harder. If you spread through the standards on T, Theory, and other analytic arguments, I won't feel guilty if it doesn't make it onto the flow. I can only evaluate what I was able to flow.

K: cool

CP: Cool

DA: Cool

FW: Cool

T: Go for it

Performance: Go for it.

Over/underviews: Please

Non Topical affs

I am open to new uses of time, performance, and affs that are not topical. However, I feel it is the burden of the affirmative to provide solid framework telling me to evaluate the round differently than if I were a traditional policymaker.

Topicality I'll be honest here. As aff, I was frequently non topical and as neg I read T all of the time. I am okay with T hacks, and I won't punish an aff outright so long as they can provide ample reason why their aff would be preferrable to the topic. I will default to competing interps on T debates generally.

Debate authors: this is my pet peeve. Debate people are great for advice at camp, they're not gods on the T flow. Cut it out. "Don't use me in round," Steve Knell, 2015

Kritiks

I don't really feel like I should have to put a section in here for K's but, here we go. I was a K hack that read Queer Theory/Ableism all of senior year. I believe that the K is a valid argument, and provides great (if not real world value,) intellectual value. I am familiar with queer, fem, and ableism literature as well as biopower. If you choose to read other identity critiques or something that isn't a "generic K," I may call for evidence. I will evaluate arguments I am unfamiliar with to the best of my ability.

Perm

Most CPs are totally able to be permed. I require debaters explain how the permutation is functional first, and evaluate whether or not the perm harms the integrity of the kritik if that becomes relevant. I am happy to grant perms, but if you do not tell me how the perm would function, I will most likely conclude neg.

DA

Honestly, disads are my least favorite arguments. If you want me to vote for it, you're best going for a CP/DA strategy.