Hi all! Feel free to call me Connelly.

connellydebate [at] gmail [dot] com

I’m currently a sophomore debating at Georgetown (Hoya Saxa!). If you’re considering debating for or attending Georgetown, please reach out! In high school I debated for Mount Pleasant in Texas (#bEastTexas).

---

TLDR

Ultimately, I believe my job as a judge is to evaluate whatever debate you all decide to have. Any preferences or biases I have can be overcome by good debating, and I would much rather judge you at your best than have you over-adapt to what you think my preferences are.

That said, I feel I am much better for policy strategies than critical strategies. Within critical strategies, I am better for ones that engage the case or affirm the resolution (even if that is in a creative way) than ones that do not.

I think about things through an offense/defense paradigm. Absent instruction to evaluate the debate differently, this will be my default.

I have a pretty strong disposition that the causal outcome of the plan matters. I can be convinced that other things also matter, but, if equally debated, it will be difficult to convince me to disregard the consequences of the plan entirely.

I will not evaluate things that occurred outside of the debate. If there is a serious issue of interpersonal violence, I will attempt to contact the appropriate set of people, whether that be coaches, tab, etc. I will not make a subjective determination on what happened via the ballot.

---

Critical Affirmatives vs Topicality

I will decide these debates, like any other, based on the flow alone. I am more than willing to vote in either direction.

That said, I am probably “better” for the neg than the aff here. The overwhelming majority of my own experience in these debates is on the neg going for T. I also have a pretty strong predisposition that the aff should defend doing something. If your strategy is dependent on defending nothing, I will likely be very sympathetic to the neg on T.

I think affirmatives should pick a strategy and commit to it. The 2AR should either center around a re-interpretation of the resolution (which should likely involve evidence) OR around impact turns to the negative’s impacts/performance/etc.

Ideally, both the 2NR and 2AR will include robust impact comparison as well as internal link comparison/interaction.

---

Critical Affirmatives vs Substance

Negative teams who take up the affirmative on the substance of the case will be rewarded.

I’m absolutely down for a big impact turn debate or big DA debate. If the aff will grant you links to those things, you should take them up on it!

I feel the least comfortable in K v K debates. If that’s your thing, go for it! Just please take the time to give me clear judge instruction as to how I should resolve the important questions in the debate.

---

Policy Affs vs Topicality

Great. Go for it.

Much like in T-USFG debates, I think about these through the lens of models. Giving me a clear picture of your model—including what affirmatives are/are not included, what core generics are guaranteed, and why those debates are good ones to have—will correspond with a greater chance of winning the debate.

Reasonability is most persuasive when it is packaged as a predictability DA. “Good is good enough” is not a winner.

---

Policy Affs vs Disadvantages

Great. Go for them.

Impact comparison is incredibly important. Give me clear tools for comparing impacts during my decision.

I am very persuaded by turns case arguments, even when analytical.

There can be a lot of utility in making smart analytical arguments, especially ones that get at the logical inconsistencies within a given DA.

---

Policy Affs vs Counterplans

Great. Go for them.

Process

I'm pretty good for the aff on competition when debated well.

I find the way people currently think about "textual" and "functional" competition to be strange and often devolve into word salad. To me, the important questions in a competition debate include:

-What do the words mean? What could they mean?

-What kinds of CPs would a given model include? What kinds would they exclude?

-Why is it good/bad to include/exclude those CPs?

Judge Kick

My default assumption is that I should judge kick the CP, the same way my default assumption is that conditionality is not a reason to reject the team.

If no one says a word about judge kick, I will do it.

If the aff would like me to not judge kick the CP, that debate -must- start by at least the 1AR. If the 2AR is the first time anyone is talking about judge kick, I will probably do it anyways.

This also means it is likely in the best interest of the negative to get out ahead of this debate by telling me to judge kick in the block.

Conditionality

Probably predisposed to think it is good, but that shouldn’t really matter. If the 2AR is condo, I will evaluate the debate according to the flow alone, not my own preferences.

This does mean, however, if large portions of the debate are left unresolved by the 2NR/2AR, I am probably more likely to resolve them in favor of conditionality.

Other Theoretical Questions

If the 2AC says it is a reason to reject the team, and the only thing the 2NC says is “reject the argument not the team,” I’m pretty good for the aff. I do not understand why neg teams consistently choose to leave this door open when it would take 15-20 seconds at most to close it entirely. If the 2AC does not make a complete argument, then the above 2NC response is probably sufficient, but if the 2AC includes warranted reasons to reject the team, failing to respond to those seems pretty dangerous.

---

Policy Affs vs Kritiks

I am a lot worse for the neg here than I used to be. That should not deter you from reading or going for kritiks in front of me, but it is something I feel like you should know.

It is hard to convince me the plan does not matter at all. You can do it, but if equally debated, I will likely give the aff the plan.

I will try not to arbitrarily create middle road interpretations that were not advanced in a given debate. I do think, however, it is often in the interests of both teams to advance these kind of interpretations, or at least give me some tools to resolve the debate in a middle ground way.

Like in any debate, impact comparison and judge instruction matters a lot.

---

Other Events

Lincoln Douglas

I did this like twice in high school. My background is incredibly policy so I will think about debates the way a policy-brained judge would.

If your thing is “prog LD,” I’m great for that.

If your thing is “trad LD,” that’s also great. I don’t feel super experienced with value/criterion debating, but as long as you give me clear judge instruction and tell me why you winning certain arguments means you win the debate, we should be all good.

I do not want to judge a trix debate. Those are for kids.

Public Forum

No idea how I ended up here. I do not know anything about PF specifically but all of my above thoughts apply.

Also apparently y’all paraphrase evidence instead of actually reading it? I don’t understand that. I would rather you read cards.

Extemp

I did this for 6 years and loved it.

I care about your macro structure as well as your micro structure. There should be a clear development of ideas within your points.

Source quality matters. Using high level sources will be rewarded.

Be sure you answer the question, not answer around the question.

I consider myself to be a policy maker; as such, I will vote for the team who persuades me that their proposed policy has the greater impacts. I will vote for almost anything. However, I will only vote for what is said in the round. I will not do the work for you, so do not expect me to have any pre-existing knowledge. Explain all arguments thoroughly, as if I don't know anything. I have judged many rounds during my career, but not a lot this year. Because of that, my ear is a bit out of tune - consider that when opting for extremely rapid delivery. I do prefer real world impacts; I will vote for theory, but you will have to do much more work. If you're looking for an easy vote from me, stick with real world.

If you were to ask me what arguments I prefer to hear, I would tell you to just do your thing. However, if pressed, I would tell you that I don't prefer kritiks; it's not because I don't like kritiks, just that often they are not run well or explained well. If you read one, it should be one for which you have read all the literature yourself, and understand well. As I mentioned above, you should not assume that I have any pre-existing knowledge on the literature you're reading; you have to do the work yourself. Additionally, a K v K round should never, ever happen in front of me. Other than that, I really will listen to anything - as long as it is explained well.

I do not tolerate racist, sexist, or otherwise offensive arguments or behavior in round, including being disrespectful or condescending to lesser-experienced teams. Additionally, I have no tolerance for male teams who belittle women who are being aggressive. I do not care how far ahead you are on the flow; I will vote you down if you engage in this kind of behavior.

Topshelf

- I'm chill w speed but slow down on interps and analytics

- time your own speeches and prep

- please put me on the email chain thubbs7749@gmail.com

- if you want me to vote on an argument it needs to be implicated out - i should understand it to the point i can explain it myself and it should have warrants, not just a claim.

- I will not dig through your evidence files, make sure to articulate how your arguments outweigh and or clash with your opponents. I love line by lines. Kinda the same as above but you get the jist.

CP/DA

i love these debates, go for this. evidence quality matters and can win a round. good weighing is super important in rebuttal speeches

Ks:

Go for it, off the top of my head I think that specific links to the plan and an alt that does something to solve case are probably the best. I am better at evaluating Ks like cap and set col but I prefer for you to break it down for me if you do run a k. Framework matters a lot to me. I think that debate is a good activity, but I will vote on debate bad claims if there's a good justification.

T/Theory:

I probably won't vote on dumb theory arguments unless they are just completely dropped. I will listen to condo but I'm not the most swayed by the argument. I'm good with T debates, no RVI’s.

Tricks:

won't vote on them.

K - affs:

I think they should be tangentially related to the topic, otherwise I err negative on T-FW

Other Stuff

have fun, debate can be stressful but try your best to make the most out of the activity

no offensive language - that includes racist, sexist, homophobic words - you WILL lose the round and your speaks will be terrible

I am Dyspolity@gmail.com on email chains.

NSDA update:

I love judging here. Principally this is because the schools who compete the most robust circuits have to slow down and I get to be a meaningful participant in the debates. I am not fast enough to judge the TOC circuit and even my home circuit, TFA can have me out over my skis trying to follow. But here, my experience has been that the very best schools adapt to the format by slowing their roll and this allows me to viscerally enjoy the beauty and rigor of their advocacy. Do not confuse my pace limitations with cognitive limits.

Who I am:

Policy debater in the 1970's and 80's. I left debate for 15 years then became a coach in 1995. I was a spread debater, but speed then was not what speed is today. I am not the fast judge you want if you like speed. Because you will email me your constructive speeches, I will follow along fine, but in the speeches that win or lose the round I may not be following if you are TOC circuit fast. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it.

I have coached most of my career in Houston at public schools and currently I coach at Athens in East Texas. I have had strong TOC debaters in LD, but recently any LDers that I have coached were getting their best help from private coaching. Only recently have I had Policy debate good enough to be relevant at TOC tournaments.

I rarely give 30's. High points come from clear speaking, cogent strategic choices, professional attitudes and eloquent rhetoric.

Likes:

Line by line debates. I want to see the clash of ideas.

Policy arguments that are sufficiently developed. A disadvantage is almost never one card. Counterplans, too, must be fully developed. Case specific counterplans are vastly preferable to broad generics. PIC's are fine.

Framework debates that actually clash. I like K debates, but I am more likely to vote on a K that is based on philosophy that is more substantive and less ephemeral. NOTE: I have recently concluded that running a K with me in the back of the room is likely to be a mistake. I like the ideas in critical arguments, but I believe I evaluate policy arguments more cleanly.

Dislikes:

Poor extensions. Adept extensions will include references to evidence, warrants and impacts.

Overclaiming. Did I need to actually include that?

Theory Arguments, including T. I get that sometimes it is necessary, but flowing the standards and other analytical elements of the debate, particularly in rebuttals, is miserable. To be clear, I do vote on both theory and T, but the standards debate will lose me if you are running through it.

Circuit level speed.

I am fine with conditional elements of a negative advocacy. I believe that policy making in the real world is going to evaluate multiple options and may even question assumptions at the same time. But I prefer that the positions be presented cogently.

Rudeness and arrogance. I believe that every time you debate you are functioning as a representative of the activity. When you are debating an opponent whose skill development does not approach your own, I would prefer that you debate in such a way so as to enable them to learn from the beating your are giving them. You can beat them soundly, and not risk losing the ballot, without crushing their hopes and dreams. Don't be a jerk. Here is a test, if you have to ask if a certain behavior is symptomatic of jerkitude, then it is.

One More Concern:

There are terms of art in debate that seem to change rather frequently. My observation is that many of these terms become shorthand for more thoroughly explained arguments, or theoretical positions. You should not assume that I understand the particularly specialized language of this specific iteration of debate.

Policy Debate:

I default negative unless convinced otherwise. Also, I fail to see why the concept of presumption lacks relevance any more.

LD Debate:

Because of the time skew, I try to give the affirmative a lot of leeway. For example, I default aff unless convinced otherwise.

I have a very high threshold to overcome my skepticism on ROTB and ROTJ and Pre-Fiat arguments. I should also include K aff's that do not affirm the resolution and most RVI's in that set of ideas that I am skeptical about on face. I will vote on these arguments but there is a higher threshold of certainty to trigger my ballot. I find theory arguments more persuasive if there is demonstrable in-round abuse.

PF Debate:

I won't drop a team for paraphrasing, yet, but I think it is one of the most odious practices on the landscape of modern debate. Both teams are responsible for extending arguments through the debate and I certainly do not give any consideration for arguments in the final focus speeches that were not properly extended in the middle of the debate.

Congress:

1) This is not an interactive activity. I will not signal you when I am ready. If I am in the back of your Congress session, I am ready. 2) At the best levels of this event, everyone speaks well. Content rules my rankings. 3)I am particularly fond of strong sourcing. 4)If you aren't warranting your claims, you do not warrant a high ranking on my ballot. 5) Your language choices should reflect scholarship. 6) All debate is about the resolution of substantive issues central to some controversy, as such clash is critical.