Peach State Classic
2021 — NSDA Campus, GA/US
Policy Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
(she/her) - Northview (AI, AY) '21 - email@example.com
Background: I had 6 TOC bids my senior year and 11 career bid rounds.
General: Do whatever you want but if it helps, I really like the K (mostly familiar with afropessimism, axiology, psychoanalysis, any iteration of academy, coercive mimeticism, cybernetics, settler colonialism, biopolitics, and capitalism) and I think clash debates are the most fun and interesting to watch and participate in. That being said, I think it's important judges stay tabula rasa and I try to honor that to the best of my abilities.
I'll pretty much vote on anything so long as it's ethical and debated well.
Yes email chain-- firstname.lastname@example.org
I am currently a coach at Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart. I debated in high school at Washburn Rural, in college at the University of Kansas, and have coached and judged debate since I graduated high school.
I am very involved on the HS NATO topic.
I have almost no familiarity with the college personhood topic. I have (prior to Indiana) judged no debates and cut no cards. I am judging online at Indiana.
Deep debates > broad debates, good for T vs plan and vs no plan, both evidence and narrative are important, clash > trickery, plan vagueness makes debates bad, won't judge kick unless instructed
NATO topic updates
I strongly prefer closed cx and give better points to debaters who are capable of fielding their own cx questions.
Very bad for T-article 5.
This topic is bad for the neg. That means I'm probably open to slightly more conditional arguments (3 or 4) than before. However, an aff-biased topic is not a justification for CPs that compete off of certainty. The argument that "it's hard to be negative so therefore we get to do your aff" is ludicrous.
I am probably not a "stock issues judge" yet, but I do find myself increasingly willing to vote on presumption and caring about stock issues. Examples of when I am probably more stock-issues oriented than my fellow judges:
- if the plan text has been done in the status quo, even if the aff's solvency evidence describes something else, I'm open to voting on inherency. If the plan says "increase sc over space" and the neg reads ev that we just did that, seems tough to be aff even if the aff reads solvency evidence that "satellite hardening" is not being done. You want to beat this argument? Read a specific plan!
- I am willing to assign terminal defense to advantages/disadvantages
- I generally believe topicality to be a jurisdictional voting issue
I am much more compelled by a small number of very well developed arguments than a large number of poorly developed arguments. Poorly developed arguments should be flippantly disregarded.
Argumentative narrative is very important to me. Packaging arguments effectively goes a long way with me, regurgitating arguments thoughtlessly does not tend to get a lot of weight in my decisions.
2NC CP's out of add ons are probably legitimate. 2NC CP's out of straight turned DA's are lazy. If you introduced a legitimate opportunity cost to the affirmative, you should be willing to defend it.
I will not evaluate arguments about an individual's character or behavior that occurred outside of the debate. I am an adult and I feel uncomfortable and unwilling to decide the moral worth of individual actions of high schoolers that I have never met.
Theory- sure. Lots of 1nc’s seem to have far too many extremely questionable arguments that degrade the overall quality of debates.
K aff vs T- I am far better for the neg than the aff. The most successful affs in this scenario will focus almost all of their debating on why their interp/model of debate produces better debates over the course of a season.
The longer I am a coach, the more I think most ethics violations are accidents or misunderstandings.
If an ethics challenge is raised by debaters, I will clarify with the accusing team that they are raising an ethics challenge, stop the debate, and adjudicate if I thought 1. an ethics violation occurred and 2. that the correct remedy was to vote against the team. This is a high threshold for the accusing team, as it should be. I will not allow for ethics violations to be introduced as offcase positions to be debated.
For full transparency, here are the things I generally believe to be worthy of ethics challenges:
- Clipping cards
- Fabricating evidence
- Threats or acts of violence to your opponents
- Bad faith* evidence practices
*Bad faith is a high threshold to me. To demonstrate that something was done in bad faith, you must prove that the violating team 1. violated an evidence norm, 2. was aware of the violation ahead of time and continued to violate this evidence norm, and 3. that the violation is worthy of rejecting the team.
-- You should speak more slowly. You will debate better. I will understand your argument better. Judges who understand your argument with more clarity than your opponent's argument are likely to side with you.
-- You can't clip cards. This too is non-negotiable. If I catch it, I'll happily ring you up and spend the next hour of my life reading Cracked. If you're accusing a team of it, you need to be able to present me with a quality recording to review. Burden of Proof lies with the accusing team, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is my standard for conviction.
-- If I can't understand your argument -- either due to your lack of clarity or your argument's lack of coherence, I will not vote for it. The latter is often the downfall of most negative critiques.
-- One conditional advocacy + the squo is almost always safe. Two + the squo is usually safe. Any more and you're playing with fire.
-- I like to reward debaters who work hard, and I will work hard not to miss anything if I'm judging your debate. But I'm also a human being who is almost always tired because I have spent the last 12 years coaching debate...so if you seem like you don't care about the debate at hand, I am unlikely to try harder than you did.
- Anything else? Just ask....
Call me Sam, He/Him, Oak Park River Forest '21 & Emory '25, currently coaching for Pace Academy, yes email chain email@example.com.
If you have committed SA don't pref me.
In my mind there are two serious reasons you might be reading my paradigm: either 1. you are determining prefs before a tournament or 2. you are determining how I will respond to your strategy before the round. I have organized my paradigm accordingly.
Listed below are the things I think are most important to point out about the way I judge, and the places where I might differ from the "consensus" of the debate community. If I do not bring up a certain issue, you should assume that I adopt the general "consensus view." If there is a particularly question that is important to you that I do not mention, you should absolutely feel free to email me before a tournament or even before a round. I will not write you up an essay on how I think you should go for whatever argument but I will answer straightforward yes or no questions like "is inserting a card ok if it was read in cx" (yes) or "when debated equally, do you think a textually legitimate but functionally illegitimate perm is valid if both teams agree a counterplan must be textually and functionally competitive" (also yes). If you are unsure whether your question is appropriate, there's no harm in asking.
-I like smart arguments. I like line by line. I like spreading (while being clear) and reading lots of cards and comparing evidence.
-I put substantial effort into evaluating every debate I judge to the best of my ability. That being said, the following is a ranking from most to least of my average confidence in evaluating each type of debate: DA/CP/Case Turn v Policy Aff, T v Policy Aff, K v Policy Aff, T/FW/DA v K Aff, K v K Aff.
-Debate is an educational and competitive research game with a winner and a loser and my job is to determine who did the better debating.
-I have not judged a lot of T-USFG/FW debates, so I am not sure how idiosyncratic my approach of them is compared to common community practices. However, all else being equal, I have yet to see a convincing argument for why the affirmative should not have to defend a topical plan.
For Pre- (and Post-) round
-Do not over-adapt! Do what you do, do it well, and you will get my ballot.
-I am easily impressed by debaters who demonstrate that they command an extensive but approachable understanding of American foreign policy, the internal politics of other countries, "critical" debates in academia, etc. I am easily depressed by debates who's knowledge of these subject is superficial or who can not describe these things in a way that is easily digestible. The best way to prove to me your quality as a speaker is to debate an important area of study both in-depth and in a way that a non-expert could understand.
-Have perm texts (it's ok to insert them).
-I generally flow in-person debates on paper. If you think you are going too fast you are. If you think you are unclear you are. Please slow down when you are making a lot of non-carded arguments in constructivea, especially on T/Theory/K OVs.
-Generally, after the debate ends, I will attempt to identify all the possible ways each side could win, then generate a list of the questions I need to resolve to determine which of the identified ballots I will adopt. If the answer to any of these questions can clearly be determined based only on my flow I will then answer that question in the appropriate way. Finally, I will read the evidence presented by both teams on the more ambiguous questions on my list, and incorporate evidence, spin, and analytical arguments into evaluating them. Therefore, while good evidence always important, evidence quality begins to matter a lot more to me if you have done less work with spin/analytics/etc, which is something you should keep in mind in how you approach your 2nr/2ar.
-Online: I highly encourage you to turn on your video if you are able to do so. Debate is a communicative activity and seeing you speak significantly helps me understand you on a psychological level.
-If the most precise reading of the resolution results in a bad topic, that's a gripe for the topic comity, not a justification for trying to re-define the topic (on either the aff or the neg). Is it possible to win my ballot on debatability? Yes. Does it require a lot of impact work? Also yes.
-Instead of focusing on only winning I should look at debatiability, predictability, or any of there component parts, consider how I will evaluate the round after it ends. Often times both teams have offered a number of lenses that modify one or more of these categories and how they interact. The teams that win T debates in front of me are usually the ones who come closest to identifying all the impacts and framing devices in the debate and explaining how they resolve.
-I love the politics DA. However, politics DAs require a story. The words "strong-arming moderates" in your uq ev + an "aff requires PC" card do not a story make. I will give good points for (decent) innovative policy strategies because I think they get at the heart of what makes debate fun and the ambiguities that fiat creates.
-There is a direct, positive, linear relationship between the amount of impact calc you do and how likely I am to vote for you. I know that's a cliché and I'm still including it here which should clue you in to how important this is. This also means that I am not a fan of framing contentions, and I only think they are useful in so far as you impact out and do impact calc with the applicable arguments on the appropriate DA or counterplan page. This is not to say I will throw out framing contentions; I will still try to adjudicate the debate as fairly as possible, just know that on balance I lean negative on theses issues and if you are running a framing contention you are better off convincing me the neg's impacts are securitized and bad then you are convincing me that DAs are fake.
-I default to counterplans needing to be functionally and textually competitive. However, the way the affirmative determines if the CP meets that burden is the permutation. Therefore, when debated equally, a textually legitimate but functionally illegitimate perm is valid.
-I am sympathetic to being time pressed in the 2AC and think the threshold for a sufficient explanation for a perm or solvency deficit in the 2AC is that I was able to reasonably predict the explanation the 1AR gives. However, I am a lot less sympathetic to perms and solvency deficits (especially impacts to solvency deficits) that sound substantially different in the 2AR then they do in the 1AR (or that barely feature in the 1AR but feature prominently in the 2AR). While I get this is opposite to your strategic incentives, the earlier you explain your arguments the better for me as a judge, and perms or solvency deficits that are explained thoroughly in the 2AC require less time investment to explain in the 1AR, so there is a cost/benefit calculus you have to take on.
-By default neg leaning on theory. The two most important things to my ballot on a theory argument: 1. Win topic side bias AND/OR how this theory argument implicates this topic specifically AND explain the implications of this. 2. Do impact calc. These debates often get messy, so being simple and formulaic is to your benefit.
-If judge kick is not brought up in the debate, I will kick the CP for you if it has been clearly designated as conditional/dispositional. Otherwise, I will evaluate the arguments for/against judge kick presented in the debate. If the counterplan has not been clearly designated as conditional I will not kick it.
-If neither team forwards a "middle ground" fw interp, like "weigh the advantage but also weigh reps links," I will not intervene and make one for you. I will only decide between the fw interps forwarded by either side, but a team can make arguments about modifying its fw take in later speeches to attempt to take the "middle of the road" and capture the other team's offense.
-I am uncomfortable adjudicating anything other than the debating that took place within the round I am assigned. If there is harassment within the round, I hold the appropriate course of action to be stopping the debate and going to tab, where I am happy to argue that the team doing the harassment should be expelled from the tournament and talk to the team's coaches about the debaters facing repercussions. If there is harassment outside the round, talk to me and/or send me an email and we can go to tab and/or try to determine an appropriate course of action.
-I think debate is no fun when everyone is up-tight and being a little fun and/or silly is a good thing. However, this should never come at the expense of debating well.
-If you feel uncomfortable during a round for any reason, send me an email.
-I am still paying attention even I am staring off into the distance, especially if I am flowing on my computer.
Hello! I am a second-year out from Marquette University High School currently studying real estate and business economics at Marquette University. I debated at the ToC my senior year with Bernard Medeiros and coached by Matt Cekanor, with assistance from the brilliant Josh Miller. I currently am a de facto assistant for Northview High School out of GA. Add me on the email chain at firstname.lastname@example.org.
To keep it short for if you're rushing for pref sheets:
T vs. K Aff - 9/10
T vs. Policy - 3/10
K - 9/10
CP - 9.5/10
DA - 10/10
Topic knowledge - did a lot of work on water, a lot less on NATO AI/CS/Biotech--other career pursuits have come calling!
Water Record: Aff 28 - 22 Neg (2-6 K Aff vs. T -- 0-1 K aff vs. K)
Zero risk exists and is a viable strategy in front of me. I have voted for terminal defense and will again.
Influences: Matt Cekanor, Joseph Tierney IV, Josh Miller, Will Deverey, Bernard Medeiros, Anders Sundheim, Harry Lucas, David Griffith
1. I was a 2A/1N in high school and primarily went for primarily policy arguments but overall was on a very flex team. I am a very flexible judge ideologically, you can run and say pretty much anything in front of me.
2. I think debate is a game but if there are structural problems they can be pointed out and discussed. I am best at evaluating policy debates but I'm also your judge for pretty much any critique you want to run.
3. If you have a framing page and don't read impact defense it's going to be difficult for you to win. I don't care about your theories on "cognitive bias" if there's no evidence my bias is wrong to begin with.
4. What is conceded is true but only has the implications you say it has. I evaluate what's on my flow and nothing more.
5. Conditionality is good but I've been changing my mind slowly. I find that teams use counterplans to replace substantive case debate. I've noticed that 2Ns blow off conditionality a lot. You'll lose if you do this.
6. I attempt to write the least interventionary ballot. This means you should be articulating your arguments. Leaving things up to my interpretation is risky - I am a dissident on many questions.
7. Assumption-centered debate is bad. Do not assume I know or understand your argument. Do not assume I know or understand how your argument interacts with other arguments in the debate. Explain, substantiate, defend. I hate hearing "This was answered in the overview." I flow well and it's extremely annoying.
8. Most people already don't think this but, just to be sure, these are not rules for debating with me in the back. I am very candid and open about how I think about debate because it may help you cohere your approach and make it convincing--this all exists to help you help me.
My philosophy on these isn't actually that complicated. My beef with K affs is that they either defend nothing, their offense isn't tied to debating, or both. I'd prefer if you defend spillover but if there's a disadvantage to policy debates on this topic that you think outweighs topicality, go for it. Generally though I lean toward T being good but I have no problem evaluating these debates.
1. I like well-developed, clear link stories that clash with the affirmative and turn the case. You won't have to explain your theory of power to me so much as you have to explain how it applies to the affirmative specifically. Thus, if I don't understand your theory of power at the end of the debate you've done something wrong.
2. I'm not a huge fan of critical debaters who attempt to garner non-unique links to the affirmative but I'm not gonna throw them out either. If that's your strat, go for it.
3. If you have a K you want to run, run it. I am well-versed in just about any critical literature. Most of my time has been spent in Settler Colonialism and Capitalism, while I've spent the least amount of time with Queer Theory.
4. Affs: Extinction first is easier to win than the perm but I'm good with either.
5. If you don't have an alt at the end of the debate and I don't have a reason the aff makes the world worse, you're probably going to lose.
Overall, I'm good for good K debaters, bad for anything less.
Addendum: I enjoy Security Ks but Fem IR is an offensively bad subgenre of critical security studies. Please avoid reading this argument when I'm in the back. You can ask me why I'm right if you want after the round. Pt 9 on the overview still applies, just be warned that you're barking up the wrong tree.
Update 9/13/21: I have voted for Ks 3 times this year where the negative goes for FW/epistemology first and no affirmative team has told me that the perm solves epistemic deficits and that epistemic links are still links to the epistemic status quo and the K's notion of changing debate subjectivity is just as illusory as fiat. Why. I know they're the big CRT K and it's scary to call it dumb but just say they're wrong lol, they absolutely are.
T and Theory
1. I think that winning complete or nearly complete defense on T is sufficient for the aff even in a world of competing interpretations. If the aff meets, they meet. I'm unlikely to give the following RFD: "I think the aff meets, but the negative interpretation is better, even if marginally, so any risk you don't meet, etc." These RFDs are bad and given by people who do not think about debate.
2. Your probably sub-par T cards are not predictive of the consequences of voting negative. Topicality cards (especially in the last 4 years) are bastardizations of the topic literature base designed to arbitrarily and artificially limit the topic. Basically, I don't care about camp, camp is wrong (thus, I am ambivalent about "precision" and "predictability". This will change when the community does). This all goes away if your evidence is good.
3. I think most policy affirmatives are topical. I used to love techy, small-word T arguments but now I find them absurd and pointless. Ironically, I think T-substantial actually has a place, but your evidence should actually be good.
4. I am predisposed to default to reasonability even in a world of competing interpretations. You think reasonability is "nebulous" because you can't gauge what is and isn't a common use of a term of art on a topic, because you haven't researched it.
5. You think "competing interpretations" means "small topics good" and assume that just "makes sense", usually failing to elaborate--I don't care what your coach thinks--if you can't tell me in detail why small topics are good, you will lose.
6. T isn't a debate about how words should limit the resolution but how they already do.
7. You should not go for "plan text in a vacuum" but "the plan text cannot be deconstructed word by word."
8. I vote on solvency advocate theory both as a theoretical argument and terminal case defense very hastily if you prove the abuse.
9. [Update 11/23/21] I'm very much open to hearing about plan flaws, and I vote for terminal solvency deficits, zero risk is real and you should go for it more against the aff. I'm not an offense-defense first guy (it's a useful heuristic sometimes but, if it's your only heuristic, it's bad. See: all of the above on T.
1. Condo is good (but, word to the wise, you're more likely to win spending 4 quality minutes on case). I think it's necessary to test affirmatives but I get a lot more sympathetic the more you abuse it.
2. All CP styles are theoretically legitimate.
3. You must have a 1NC solvency advocate for each plank of your counterplan. I am very kind to 2As and will grant the 1ARs new arguments at worst and at best I will reject the team (Cekanor got this from me, not the other way around).
4. Conditionality means I will judge kick the CP. Presumption doesn't flip any direction. If the CP solves nothing but there's still a disadvantage to the affirmative that outweighs and/or turns the case, there's no reason to do the aff just because the other proposed method was bad. I'm open to a debate about this but I've never seen it happen, probably because I'm right.
1. I'm a bit of an oldhead on DAs. I very much appreciate DAs with specific links to the case. If your 1NC is just DAs and case you will get +.5 speaks and +1 if you win.
2. Your 1NC DA should have uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact all in the 1NC. You have not made an argument if the 1NC lacks any of these components, and I will let the 2A do whatever he wants with it long as he says anything at all and the 1AR will get new answers.
3. My threshold for understanding how a DA functions is pretty low. It's not rocket science. But, you will have to explain the ways it turns the case, because I look at disads and see multiple case turns, so if you're super general I'm not going to do the work for you.
4. Don't be afraid to sit teams down on DA+Case in the 2NR. I love these strats and if you're losing the CP don't feel obligated to go for it.
5. I'm predisposed to extinction first and consequentialism but I've voted for soft left affs and will do so again.
6. Fiat absolutely solves all politics links--but do the debating.
1. I'm very kind to teams in this year (ok i guess 2 years hmm, this is fine, get in the pod, eat the bugs etc. etc.) of online debate. If you ask, I will 99.9999% of the time give you grace on tech issues. If you don't ask I will be suspicious.
2. Please tell me your preferred pronouns if tab doesn't do it for you. Help me help you.
3. Don't stick me up - you're not a G, you go to punk bars and listen to indie music, and you live in a gated community.
4. Instrinsicness on the DA - yes.
5. My role as a judge precedes anything else. I will err on the side of letting stuff play out. For example, if someone used gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is is entirely up to me. Any disagreement with way I handle things should be taken up with coaches who fail to develop a team culture that precludes nasty behavior.
6. Disclosure - yes, I always disclose my decision. No tournament rules will stop me from doing so. Ask me questions after the round. Don't post-round like a punk though. There are certain post-round behaviors I do not tolerate. You know who you are. Disclose your aff. I gladly vote on misdisclosure--it's a tough issue so be prepped with receipts. Always a good idea to get disclosure in writing.
7. Trash talk - fine by me, I don't care.
8. A sense of humor is refreshing. Make quips! I used to love cartoon Spiderman as a kid.
You do you, and I will do everything to evaluate the round equitably.
HS Policy Debate for 4 years at Marist School
College Policy Debate for 4 years at the University of Michigan
Good for anything and everything as long as it's explained clearly. NGL I think all that Baudrillard and other high theory stuff is pretty w0nky slush but if you can establish a unique link, win FW, or win other parts of the critique, you taking a big W. Just make sure to explain it properly.
Make sure to impact things out -- tell me why those things matter, why they mean you win/the other team loses. I keep argument bias out of the room when I'm judging so if you want to full-send no neg fiat and make it a reason to reject the team and the other team doesn't have an answer, you taking a W.
9/25 update: Besides condo, I often don't know what's going on with theory.
add me to the email chain: email@example.com
Do not utter the phrase "plan text in a vacuum" or any other clever euphemism for it. It's not an argument, I won't vote on it, and you'll lose speaker points for advancing it. You should defend your plan, and I should be able to tell what the plan does by reading it.
Inserting things into the debate isn't a thing. If you want me to evaluate evidence, you should read it in the debate.
Cross-ex time is cross-ex time, not prep time. Ask questions or use your prep time, unless the tournament has an official "alt use" time rule.
You should debate line by line. That means case arguments should be responded to in the 1NC order and off case arguments should be responded to in the 2AC order. I continue to grow frustrated with teams that do not flow. If I suspect you are not flowing (I visibly see you not doing it; you answer arguments that were not made in the previous speech but were in the speech doc; you answer arguments in speech doc order instead of speech order), you will receive no higher than a 28. This includes teams that like to "group" the 2ac into sections and just read blocks in the 2NC/1NR. Also, read cards. I don't want to hear a block with no cards. This is a research activity.
Debate the round in a manner that you would like and defend it. I consistently vote for arguments that I don’t agree with and positions that I don’t necessarily think are good for debate. I have some pretty deeply held beliefs about debate, but I’m not so conceited that I think I have it all figured out. I still try to be as objective as possible in deciding rounds. All that being said, the following can be used to determine what I will most likely be persuaded by in close calls:
If I had my druthers, every 2nr would be a counterplan/disad or disad/case.
In the battle between truth and tech, I think I fall slightly on side of truth. That doesn’t mean that you can go around dropping arguments and then point out some fatal flaw in their logic in the 2AR. It does mean that some arguments are so poor as to necessitate only one response, and, as long as we are on the same page about what that argument is, it is ok if the explanation of that argument is shallow for most of the debate. True arguments aren’t always supported by evidence, but it certainly helps.
I think research is the most important aspect of debate. I make an effort to reward teams that work hard and do quality research on the topic, and arguments about preserving and improving topic specific education carry a lot of weight with me. However, it is not enough to read a wreck of good cards and tell me to read them. Teams that have actually worked hard tend to not only read quality evidence, but also execute and explain the arguments in the evidence well. I think there is an under-highlighting epidemic in debates, but I am willing to give debaters who know their evidence well enough to reference unhighlighted portions in the debate some leeway when comparing evidence after the round.
I think the affirmative should have a plan. I think the plan should be topical. I think topicality is a voting issue. I think teams that make a choice to not be topical are actively attempting to exclude the negative team from the debate (not the other way around). If you are not going to read a plan or be topical, you are more likely to persuade me that what you are doing is ‘ok’ if you at least attempt to relate to or talk about the topic. Being a close parallel (advocating something that would result in something similar to the resolution) is much better than being tangentially related or directly opposed to the resolution. I don’t think negative teams go for framework enough. Fairness is an impact, not a internal link. Procedural fairness is a thing and the only real impact to framework. If you go for "policy debate is key to skills and education," you are likely to lose. Winning that procedural fairness outweighs is not a given. You still need to defend against the other team's skills, education and exclusion arguments.
I don’t think making a permutation is ever a reason to reject the affirmative. I don’t believe the affirmative should be allowed to sever any part of the plan, but I believe the affirmative is only responsible for the mandates of the plan. Other extraneous questions, like immediacy and certainty, can be assumed only in the absence of a counterplan that manipulates the answers to those questions. I think there are limited instances when intrinsicness perms can be justified. This usually happens when the perm is technically intrinsic, but is in the same spirit as an action the CP takes This obviously has implications for whether or not I feel some counterplans are ultimately competitive.
Because I think topic literature should drive debates (see above), I feel that both plans and counterplans should have solvency advocates. There is some gray area about what constitutes a solvency advocate, but I don’t think it is an arbitrary issue. Two cards about some obscure aspect of the plan that might not be the most desirable does not a pic make. Also, it doesn’t sit well with me when negative teams manipulate the unlimited power of negative fiat to get around literature based arguments against their counterplan (i.e. – there is a healthy debate about federal uniformity vs state innovation that you should engage if you are reading the states cp). Because I see this action as comparable to an affirmative intrinsicness answer, I am more likely to give the affirmative leeway on those arguments if the negative has a counterplan that fiats out of the best responses.
My personal belief is probably slightly affirmative on many theory questions, but I don’t think I have voted affirmative on a (non-dropped) theory argument in years. Most affirmatives are awful at debating theory. Conditionality is conditionality is conditionality. If you have won that conditionality is good, there is no need make some arbitrary interpretation that what you did in the 1NC is the upper limit of what should be allowed. On a related note, I think affirmatives that make interpretations like ‘one conditional cp is ok’ have not staked out a very strategic position in the debate and have instead ceded their best offense. Appeals to reciprocity make a lot sense to me. ‘Argument, not team’ makes sense for most theory arguments that are unrelated to the disposition of a counterplan or kritik, but I can be persuaded that time investment required for an affirmative team to win theory necessitates that it be a voting issue.
Critical teams that make arguments that are grounded in and specific to the topic are more successful in front of me than those that do not. It is even better if your arguments are highly specific to the affirmative in question. I enjoy it when you paint a picture for me with stories about why the plans harms wouldn’t actually happen or why the plan wouldn’t solve. I like to see critical teams make link arguments based on claims or evidence read by the affirmative. These link arguments don’t always have to be made with evidence, but it is beneficial if you can tie the specific analytical link to an evidence based claim. I think alternative solvency is usually the weakest aspect of the kritik. Affirmatives would be well served to spend cross-x and speech time addressing this issue. ‘Our authors have degrees/work at a think tank’ is not a response to an epistemological indict of your affirmative. Intelligent, well-articulated analytic arguments are often the most persuasive answers to a kritik. 'Fiat' isn't a link. If your only links are 'you read a plan' or 'you use the state,' or if your block consistently has zero cards (or so few that find yourself regularly sending out the 2nc in the body rather than speech doc) then you shouldn't be preffing me.
LD Specific Business:
I am primarily a policy coach with very little LD experience. Have a little patience with me when it comes to LD specific jargon or arguments. It would behoove you to do a little more explanation than you would give to a seasoned adjudicator in the back of the room. I will most likely judge LD rounds in the same way I judge policy rounds. Hopefully my policy philosophy below will give you some insight into how I view debate. I have little tolerance and a high threshold for voting on unwarranted theory arguments. I'm not likely to care that they dropped your 'g' subpoint, if it wasn't very good. RVI's aren't a thing, and I won't vote on them.