Anderson Debate Paradigm

4 years NFA-LD.

please include on speechdrop or file share of choice

Offense/Defense Paradigm

Fine with speed.

Theory:

Will vote on potential abuse.

Condo- I personally think the negative should be allowed as many counterplans as the AFF has adv(s) + 1 (like an agent CP and *number of Advantages* CP(s). I’ll have a very low threshold on condo bad theory if more that are run. To me, at the end of the round only one counterplan should be gone for/squo defended. I don't want to kick an alt for you and vote for the status quo. If the AFF wins that condo is bad then I’d vote aff. If you outtech the AFF on why multiple counterplans are good, then I won’t vote on condo bad. I don’t think “drop the arg not the debater” is persuasive in condo theory debates.

Topicality- I default to competing interpretations, but I’ll vote on reasonability if it’s won. To me, limits is the most important standard, but I think precision or others can be persuasive if the T-interp creates an undue burden for the AFF. The AFF rebuttal would ideally explain why the AFF is a fair parametrization of the resolution and how the AFFs justified are good for x,y,z theoretical reason(s).

SPEC Args- I think most of these are just defensive solvency arguments.

RVI's- no thanks.

Disclosure- I would vote on disclosure theory against either negs/affs. I do not think new affs need to be disclosed. Otherwise, If you’ve done goofed and haven’t disclosed, then you should read a counterinterpretation as to why you shouldn’t have to disclose for X,Y,Z reason and then win offense in favor of that interp. i.e. “Debaters don’t have to disclose if the positions they read are on their team’s wiki/until after the tournament is over” or something like that. Still probably an uphill battle, but if the other debater isn’t that good on the disclosure theory collapse then you could still win the round.

I could vote on Framework against Ks/K AFFs, provided the debater actually wins the FW flow. If the negative is just “They don’t defend the resolution and that’s against the rules,” that's not very persuasive. To me, FW debate is about why limits are good vs why the inclusion of the AFF and the AFFs justified by the AFF’s interp are necessary for X,Y,Z reason.

K

I’d like to know why the worldview promoted by other debater is wrong (link work), why it’s important to reject/stop that kind of thinking (impact work), and how the alternative in some way resolves that worldview.

CP

I’m interested in the extent to which the CP solves the AFF and if an accompanying DA/other source of offense is a bigger deal than any potential solvency deficits/turns on the counterplan.

DA

PTX-Not super persuaded by “my card is from the next day” arguments on uniqueness. I find warrant comparison between the cards on why X,Y,Z political thing will/will not happen to be more persuasive than spamming three UNQ/nonunq cards.

Impact Turns: They often seem strategic to me.

About me: I began coaching high school debate in the US in 2017, after coaching 2 years in Japan. In that time I have judged PF and LD debate from local novice rounds up to the final round of LD at NCFL Grand Nationals. While not a high school debater myself, I learned the value of debate in college, where I publicly debated my thesis on a potential war in Iraq (this was shortly before the 2nd war). A poll of the lay audience suggested that I "won" on my solid arguments, evidence and impacts... But the poll also showed the majority disagreed with my proposed course of action. So could that really be considered a "win"? Turns out, I had barely touched an underlying value debate that neither I nor the lay audience had recognized was needed. This is just one reason I find great value in both impact-oriented PF and value-oriented LD debate (the two styles I have most experience coaching and judging). Below are things I value when judging a round.

What I value as a judge:

Do the most important work for me. I expect to debaters to do the core work of linking claims to evidence to framework, etc., highlighting key points of clash, and weighing. If reasoning seems to be vague or missing, I will not fill it in for you. For example, don't tell me to cross-apply an argument and assume that I will know how you expect me to cross-apply it--explain how it applies and why it matters.

Speak so I can flow. If debaters speak too fast or use too much jargon, I cannot flow it. When I make the final decision, I refer to my flow. You want your arguments to be on my flow! PF is aimed at educating the public, so make sure a layman can follow along. Even LD should be flowable for opponents and judges. There is no excuse for obfuscation.

Be clear and concise. Use signposts to refer to framework, contentions and sub-points. If a debater has to speak fast to fit all the arguments in, they likely have not distilled their speeches down to the most critical issues. Puns are fun, but my RFD is based on argumentative powers, not added "flowers".

Use Cross-Ex/Crossfire to clarify. Ask questions to reveal and clarify key issues, and answer opponents' questions in good faith. Be sure that both sides get the opportunity clarify the key issues. CX is not an opportunity for one side to extend its own points according to its own prerogative. I frown upon cases that blatantly expect Side A to use their CX time so that Side B can finish laying out a case that Side B couldn't fit within their own allotted time.

Maintain decorum. Be careful not to lose temper in the heat of the round. Do not abuse CX by excessively cutting off or talking over the opposing team. Avoid gestures and comments that would be considered rude in an academic or professional setting. I may down-vote teams that break these rules.

Don't linger on rule violations. I do appreciate teams letting me know when they think an opponent has violated the rules, but don't spend too much time on it. Summarize how the rules appear to have been violated and then move on. Lingering too long on a rule violation runs the risk of leaving other important issues unaddressed, which I may weigh more heavily than the perceived violation.

My paradigm is pretty straight-forward. I believe debate is an educational opportunity designed to promote discourse. While I can handle speed, I do not prefer it as I believe that it detracts from the intentions of the activity. I prefer lots of clash. Having the ability to provide a strong line-by-line response is effective. Use your evidence to your advantage. Don't assume I will make the connections for you. If you want me to flow it, say it.

In Congressional Debate, there is no need to preface how many times you have spoken. It's a waste of time. Your name and your school is sufficient. As a Parliamentarian, I will be as hands off as possible. If you think there is an issue, that is up to you as representatives to ask the PO. Try to be as direct as possible in your questions. Lots of time is wasted in prefacing.