Last changed on
Fri April 12, 2024 at 4:40 AM EDT
Warning: this is subject to change at any times. These are the current ramblings of a man who is tired after running a two-day tournament. This should be somewhat accurate but keep that in mind.
(Last edited April '21)
###
I am a current junior on the Hillsdale College Policy and Parliamentary debate teams. I competed for 3 years in CCA debate in high school in team policy on the South West Argumentation Team (SWAT).
IN SHORT:
I am primarily a tabula rasa judge and will vote on anything said in round. If a debater says something that is clearly false I will gladly vote on it if the other team doesn't call it out. Stupid arguments are only stupid if the other team says they are stupid. Do not assume ANYTHING with me. I am willing to vote on death good impact turns so if I'm willing to do that I will probably do almost anything else. Tl;dr - tech>truth.
Debate is a game, and a sport, and it's about winning. That is the only thing that matters. Other impacts are secondary. Whatever you have to do to win is the right strategy. Bring shiny things to your coach, or face their wrath.
THE LONG VERSION:
ROTB/Framework:
- I default to policymaking framework unless another framework is provided. If a framework is brought up and goes unrefuted, as far as I'm concerned that's a cold concession and will be the framework of the round, even if it is "stupid." If NEG gets up and tells me the role of the ballot is to award the debater who does the most jumping jacks in round and immediately starts doing jumping jacks, and AFF doesn't refute, I will sign my ballot for the NEG. Framework matters. DON'T DROP IT. I WILL BE SAD, AND SO WILL YOU.
- Net benefits is the default method for evaluating arguments, again, unless an alternative is given. If the AFF gets up and reads their 1A, and the NEG gets up and reads a DA, and the AFF drops the DA but proves that AFF is more impactful, I will vote AFF regardless of the dropped DA. Give arguments weight so that I don't have to, because you may not like the conclusions I come to on my own. I love impact calculus; use it and use it well, especially in rebuttals.
Topicality:
- Proven abuse is absolutely preferable. I am willing to vote on potential abuse in some cases, but you will probably have to do a lot of work on the flow to get me to pull the trigger on it.
- Pay attention to the line-by-line. For instance, if you drop FXT good/bad standards, that is a really easy place for me to vote as a judge.
- Impact T. I do not care at all unless you show me why it matters. Fairness and education are always good impacts; show me why they matter through your standards.
Inherency:
- If you run an Inh procedural you'd better be really sure that it's strong. If it's not the identical plan I don't think I would pull the trigger on it. Hard to know outside of specific instances, but there it is. If the exact plan has already been passed or is in effect, I will absolutely vote on it (assuming it's argued well of course).
Vagueness:
- I love vagueness when it is run well. I prefer proven abuse (obviously) but potential abuse may be enough for me to vote. Show me why the round/your ground/educational value has been harmed (or potentially harmed).
- Give me impacts, otherwise it doesn't matter. So what if educational value is harmed? So what if you had ground loss? Why does it matter?
Multiple worlds:
- I generally will allow for one conditional negative advocacy, but I will also easily pull the trigger on condo bad if the argumentation is made well.
- Multicondo is evil and extremely abusive, but if the other team makes no refutation on it, I will begrudgingly vote on multicondo positions (or any one of many if they kick out of all but one). Basically, don't run multicondo unless you're feeling really spicy and lucky, or unless you have a really good multicondo good shell (I will listen to it and take it at face value until refuted). If the other team refutes it even on the most basic level, I will generally default to single condo advocacy, but also, I default to the flow of the round, so if something like an interp is dropped on the flow, that's conceded argumentation.
- See the point I make under K's about multiple pre-fiat issues being run in the same round.
DAs:
- Linear disads: just get uniqueness. It's not that hard. I can't say for sure that I would not vote for a linear disad, but I can't think of a situation where I would, so keep that in mind. Even if you can't get hard uniqueness you can almost certainly come up with a brink. Seriously, get SOMETHING, it really isn't hard.
- Politics disads: it's really hard to have strong uniqueness (not impossible but hard), especially tix DAs with non-legislative related links.
- If your link chain/impact scenario has to do with one of many of the classic nuke war scenarios (e.g. Indo-Pak, South China Sea, etc.), I will be more potentially sympathetic to arguments against weak links. Make sure you have strong stories showing why the disad you're running uniquely triggers an impact scenario that's been looming for decades in some cases. On the other hand, on the AFF, I'm more sympathetic to defense on these types of disads. Again, I'll vote on anything, but these types of scenarios are just slightly less persuasive to me because they've been around so long.
CPs:
- It's hard to write a good CP. A good CP is almost always NOT generic and almost ALWAYS very competitive. If your CP is not competitive I probably will not vote on it. Simple as.
- Generic CPs are usually easily defeated. I will vote on them if inadequate argumentation is made.
- Timeframe, 50 states, consult, etc. are usually abusive (especially when combined). Point that out and it will make your life much easier. Also, impact the abuse argument please. :)
- Perms: perms are a test of competitiveness, NOT an advocacy. If the AFF perms the CP, they have NOT advocated for the world of the perm. They have simply tested the competitiveness of the CP.
- Perms pt. 2: if you simply dump like 4 perms on the flow and don't warrant them out, I'm much less likely to look at each of them. I am less inclined to vote on a perm that is one of multiple one-line perms dumped on the flow when the AFF drops all but one and goes all in without doing proper argumentation initially. That is somewhat abusive in my mind. Again though, if the NEG doesn't make that argumentation, I will (begrudgingly) gladly vote on that perm.
Kritiks:
- I gotta be honest, I don't much love kritiks and I am pretty unfamiliar with most K lit. You have to do a LOT of work in round getting me to 1. understand what on earth you're saying and 2. get me to vote on it.
- I would vote on argumentation made as to why K's destroy education or exclude debaters from the debate space. That argumentation needs to be made and won, but I would definitely vote on it.
- If K's and any other pre-fiat arguments are being run in the same round, I LOVE argumentation talking about what I should evaluate first. Figuring out how to evaluate multiple pre-fiat issues at once is one of the most interesting arguments in debate for me. HOWEVER, IF YOU HAVE A K AND T AND ANY OTHER PROCS FLOATING AROUND IN THE SAME ROUND AND DON'T HELP ME DECIDE WHAT TO EVALUATE FIRST, YOU HAVE NO GUARANTEE I WILL CHOOSE YOUR ARGUMENT FIRST. MAKE THE ANALYSIS, PLEASE!
- When I do actually like a K, it's generally because it's philosophical in nature. Heidegger, Marx, Schopenhauer, etc.
- Win the alternative. A K without an alt is just sad and I'm not sure I'd vote on a K with no alt.
- Win the ROTB. It is easy for me to default to policymaking if your opponent does work on your ROTB. However, if the other team drops your ROTB that's usually a death sentence for them, so take advantage of that. All you have to do after winning ROTB is prove that you meet it better, and I'll sign it then and there.
- I like the Marxism K but I also think most people running it do not understand it, and there is a possibility that Historical Materialism contradicts the actual K wording itself, so if the other team makes that analysis, be careful and be able to defend your side, since I already have this in my mind somewhat.
- Most people run Heidegger wrong. I love Heidegger but I don't know if there's a single debater who properly understands him. Just be careful and walk me through it, and you should be ok.
- Race K's and Queer Theory should probably be avoided with me. Again, I will listen to anything you run, but I am decidedly unfamiliar and I just don't like race and queer theory K's in general.
Speed:
- I am fine with moderately fast. If I don't understand you I will clear you. If I have evidence in front of me it is easier to follow speed.
- Slow down on analytics. If you dump a ton of analytics on the flow in rapid succession it may be difficult for me to follow. I will do my best (and some days are better than others), but I'd prefer you to slow down.
- I will call clear twice. If I call twice and still cannot understand you, I will put down my pen when I can't understand you, because at that point it's your loss.
- Speed as pertains to spreading out your opponent: it's fine to do, and can be a good strategy (again, do what you need to do to win). Slow and smart always beats fast and dumb. However, if your opponent calls clear on you and you don't adjust, even if I can keep up, I will take that into consideration in the round, especially if it happens more than twice in a speech.
- I'm probably slightly more favorable towards speed K's than your average judge, as long as the arguments are made well. However, if you run a speed K on an opponent and you didn't call clear in the previous speech, to me that is a blatant miss on your part, and I will be extremely likely to vote on a simple "I meet" by the opponent saying they would have slowed down if you had called clear, because to me that's just lazy debating. Also, yeah, if you called clear and they slowed down, don't run a speed K.
- Tl;dr on speed K's: don't abuse either way, and don't be lazy.
