Capitol Beltway Fall Classic at Walt Whitman
2014 — MD/US
Public Forum Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Years debated : 4
Last POLICY debate – 2013
Judging HS Policy Debate since: 2012
I believe in looking at ways to solve problems at the micro and macro level. It's awesome to discuss the broder aspects, but you can use things that are inevitable for the greater good. In other words, you can fight the battle and the war.
Warrant and compare your your arguments, close as many doors as you can in the debate. and be clear about it. Impact calc and internal link contestations and explanation are the key things i look at in determining who won.
Please speak at a conversational pace. If I can't understand your argument, I can't flow your argument.
Prefer quality over quantity. One solid argument will persuade me more than a dozen undeveloped arguments.
When speaking, please introduce evidence with the author’s full name, qualifications, publication, and publication date. This information is essential to evaluating the strength of your evidence. While last name/year may be the minimum requirement per NSDA rules, it is not sufficient to win the ballot. Each piece of evidence should be introduced with a brief pause or by saying “quote/unquote.” This is necessary to distinguish between evidence and analysis.
Please signpost with arguments, not authors.
Please ensure that your evidence supports the claims you are making. Disconnects between claims and evidence will seriously damage your credibility.
I debated policy at Eleanor Roosevelt HS for three years and debated at Liberty University for two years.
For the high school and college rez: I have not done much research on the topic, so be aware that I’m not familiar with topic-specific jargon and acronyms.
DA’s – I enjoy the politics DA’s probably more than any other argument. I am not compelled to vote on DA's with terrible internal link stories and even more terrible evidence. Impact comparison is important but I would much rather hear a substantial debate on the link level. I am also not particularly swayed by theory on politics DA's and will most likely not vote on it.
CP’s – I like CP's, the more specific the solvency evidence is for the 1AC, the better. However, I am not a fan of word PIC's or Consult CP's, so I encourage you to explore a different strategy in front of me.
K’s – My knowledge of K literature and philosophers is top-heavy, so do not assume that I have extensive knowledge about an author or argument that was read in the debate. I’m familiar with basic K’s (anthro, cap, security, etc) but I have little knowledge base with high-theory K’s. With that said, tag line extensions are insufficient and you should err on the side of explanation. Most K's fail in so far as the alternative is shallowly extended and explained; if that is the case, I am less compelled to vote for the K. I want to hear a discussion of what the aff looks like in the world of the alt. The alternative is a critical aspect of the K and should be a huge point of contestation. From previous debates I've judged, the weakest points of most teams have always been the alternative. So if by the end of the debate and you have not kicked the alternative, I would like a clear analysis of how it functions and the role of my ballot.
Topicality – I default to competing interpretations, unless told otherwise. I like good topicality debates but only when the impact is extensively discussed. Topic-specific definitions are good. I’m a tad bit sympathetic towards reasonability claims.
Theory – Most theory debates devolve into block reading with little clash. This is not the way to have a theory debate, and if theory is more than a time suck to you and you want it to be a viable option at the end of the debate, you should probs respond to your opponent’s args.
Conditionality – Two advocacies are acceptable. Three is pushing it.
Miscellaneous thoughts –
· Although my style of arguments in high school were more K-oriented, my style in college has usually been policy-oriented.
· Debate what you’re good at, don’t feel like you have to change your argumentation style if you have me in the back of the room.
· Although debate is a game, always have fun and show respect to each other.
· As I judge more and more, I've discovered that I am an extremely flow centric judge. I don't like to do work for either team so make sure your speech meets the threshold of sufficiency.
· Clarity is important! If I can't understand you, your arguments are not on my flow.
· You don’t have to use prep to flash files, but don’t abuse this.
· For any questions, contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org
Email chains: email@example.com
Coach at Mason (2016-Present)
If my camera is off, I am not ready. Please do not start your speech yet or I will likely miss things. Thanks!
Top Level Things:
Tech > truth (most of the time)
Depth > breadth
Strategic thinking/arg development/framing of args > 10 cards that say X
I won't take prep for flashing/emailing, just don't steal it.
If a paradigm is not provided for me to evaluate the round, I will default to util.
I don't keep track of speech time/prep. Please keep your own.
Unless I am told not to judge kick by the 2AR, I will default to judge-kicking the CP or alt (in open).
I won't vote on things that have occurred outside of the round (ie pre-round misdisclosure).
Do not include cards in the card doc if they were not referenced in the 2NR/2AR but they do answer arguments your opponents made in their speech. If you didn't make the arg, I'm not going to read the card.
2:15 judge time is the bane of my existence. I apologize in advance for going to decision time in nearly every open debate. I like being thorough.
Please. Please. Please. Start slow for the first 5 seconds of each speech. It is sometimes so hard to comprehend online debate, especially if you are even slightly unclear in person.
Make sure to occasionally check the screen when speaking to make sure we aren't frozen/showing you we can't hear you.
I am very understanding of inevitable online tech failures.
Main things I end up looking to cards for:
- To clarify questions I have about my flow based on arguments made in the 2NR/2AR.
- To compare the quality of evidence on well-debated arguments. If both teams have done a good job responding to warrants from opponent ev + explaining their own ev, I will look to evidence quality as a tie breaker for those arguments.
- To determine if I should discount a card entirely. If a card is bad, say that. I will then validate if the ev is bad, and if it just doesn't make arguments I will not evaluate it in my decision. If I'm not told a card is bad and the arg is dropped, I'll give the other team full weight of it regardless of ev quality to preserve 2NR/2AR arg choice on arguments dropped by the other team.
- I will NOT use evidence to create applications that were not made by debaters to answer the other team's arguments.
2021 update: I'm fine with unlimited condo. I am very unlikely to vote on condo but will if it is certainly won.
Other theory stuff:
If theory comes down to reasons that the specific CP is a voter, I view it as a reason to reject the arg and not the team. To be clear, I will not vote someone down for reading a certain type of CP or alt based on theory args alone. Independent CP theory args are highly dependent on whether there is quality evidence to substantiate the CP.
There can be 0 percent risk of a link.
Bad DAs can be beaten with analytics + an impact defense card.
Uniqueness isn't given enough credit in a lot of 2NRs/2ARs.
Link typically precedes uniqueness. You should do framing for these things.
DA turns case/case turns DA gets dropped A LOT. Try not to do that.
I miss judging politics debates.
Ks v Policy Affs:
I prefer line-by-line debates and very much dislike lengthy overviews and convoluted alt explanations. I will not make cross-applications for you.
I prefer Ks that have specific links to the topic or plan action significantly more than Ks that have state or omission links.
It is important for you to win root cause claims in relation to the specifics of the aff rather than sweeping generalizations about war. This is especially true when the aff has arguments about a certain countries' motives/geopolitical interests or reasons behind corporate/governmental actions.
Outside of something that was blatantly offensive, I believe that all language is contextual and words only mean as much as the meaning attached to them. Thus, args like "we didn't use it in that context" are convincing to me. I can be persuaded to vote them down, but I am going to be more biased the other way.
Some of the below section is also relevant for these debates.
K affs v Policy Team:
The aff should at minimum be tied to the resolution. Novices should read a plan during their first semester.
Honestly, I would just prefer to resolve a debate that is aff v. case defense + offense specific to the aff (reform CP w/ net benefit, etc) over framework. If you go for framework/if you're giving a 2AR v it, below are some random things I think about clash debates. This is not exhaustive, nor does it mean I will automatically vote on these arguments. I will vote for who I think wins the flow, but in close debates, these are my leanings:
- I dislike judging debates that solely come down to structural v procedural fairness. I find them nearly impossible to resolve without judge intervention.
- Fairness is an internal link. There are multiple impacts that come from it.
- K affs are inevitable and we should be able to effectively engage with them in ways other than fw/t when they are based in discussions of the resolution.
- Ground and stasis points in debate are important for testing and arg refinement.
- Arg refinement can still occur over the process of the aff even w/o a plan if it's in the area of the resolution. Everyone should have X topic reform good cards to answer these affs/go against the K.
- Being topical is not the end of debate.
- Affs that are directly bidirectional are not a good idea in front of me and T should be the 2NR.
- Creativity can exist with plan texts and is not precluded by defending one.
- Affs garnering solid offense from sequencing questions is one of the best ways to win my ballot in these debates.
- Debate itself is good. Gaming is good. W/L inevitable. The goal of a debate is to win.
K v K:
If you happen to find me here, give me very clear judge instruction.
They're arbitrary. I've given up trying to adapt to a scale but I do try to give speaks based on the division and tournament. Here's some important things to note:
- Confidence gets you a long way.
- If you prevent your opponent from answering in cross ex, that won't bode well for speaks and I will be annoyed.
- I will not give you a 30 because you ask for one. Though I will give birthday and Senior last tournament boosts.
- If I'm not flowing something, and you notice I am staring at you, you are being redundant and should move on.
I vote on almost anything if you win the debate. I believe that debate should be an even competition of what happens in the round and how it affects the outside world instead of the other way around. Also don't do anything racist, homophobic, sexist, patriarchal, transphobic, heteronormative or simply disrespectful in round without expecting poor speaker points. It will also affect how I view your argumentation in this safe space.
In regards to spreading I'm fine with it just don't start out at full speed I need time to adjust to voices. Also be clear and slow on tags so I can know what you are saying and what I should be voting on. I can't vote on something that I can't hear.
Top Level - Only judge every once and a while now, debated for George Mason University.
I would like to be on the email chain - gerrit.hansen96 AT gmail.com
Go to the bottom for non-policy formats
What to read before the round, if you are interested.
This paradigm is too long - I like K debate, but also policy debate. I am not as experienced in the latter, and will likely over-compensate by reading cards if I get confused or lost. I will do my best to judge your debate fairly.
I am neither the best - nor the worst, hopefully - flow in the game. I have great auditory processing, handwriting not so much. I would encourage a lil pen time for important args.
If the other team brings up an accessibility issue about some portion of your speech, the impetus is on you to fix the problem. I am somewhat open to discussion of what is reasonable (or fair) but please don't make me punish you for being a jerk.
Exclusionary language - including misgendering anyone, racism, ableism, sexism, etc is a voting issue. Almost guaranteed your speaks suffer at least. I will usually leave it to the team that has been harmed to make an argument about it, because I don't want to decide for you when your debate should end.
(Please Read) A few choice E-Debate best practices I have come across:
Please have someone listen to you speak at full speed before we get going if this is the first round of the day. Some of y'all are using rather nice technology and still having rather bad audio quality because you don't bother to set it up right.
Record prep time in the zoom chat - I find it really hard to keep timers at the best of times, and this is not the best of times. Will make exceptions for novices, but otherwise you are big kids. Please time yourself so we don't end up in awkward situations.
Post the order in the zoom chat ((especially when someone is afk) credit to Wichita BM for this one)
Webcam is not mandatory, but consider that it is both harder to pay attention to your speech, and to understand you when I can't see you.
We will negotiate what happens if someone's tech glitches out in the middle of the speech before the 1ac. Please be upfront about the tech problems you have. Telling me you almost got it 13 times while trying to fight with your internet connection is much more frustrating when you haven't communicated effectively.
Do not start interrupting people. As annoying as it is when people talk over others to ask another pointless question in real life, it's even more annoying over zoom. Treat each other with respect, like you would a classmate. Some people seem to be taking the computer screen as a reason they can be even more rude. Don't do this.
Topicality - I think this argument has many valuable uses in debate. Use it how you will. Evidence comparison and caselists are a MUST in these debates. Tell me what your vision of the topic looks like.
Reasonability, as a phrase, is not an argument. I'm open to any and all arguments about how T debates should be viewed, but the onus is on you to create a model for what judging debates in that way ought to look like. Default to competing interps.
Theory - Slow if you plan to go for it. High speed blocks are unpersuasive and are optically a cheap-shot. Potential abuse is probably not an impact I care about that much.
CP's - They can be cool, they can be contrived and silly. PIC's should be specific rather then general. Sympathetic with 2As on some counter-plan theory. Slow down on your CP text if you want me to catch its nuances. Word PIC's are usually silly.
DA - They're cool. The more creative the better. Politics is good. 1 good and well compared impact scenario is worth 3 with loose comparison or impact calculus.
K's - This is the style of debate I personally chose to do. I have a fairly extensive literature base, and am probably more then willing to listen to your stuff. If you argue your position well and prove that you have an understanding of your literature base I will probably want to vote for you. If you're good at what you do, do it.
Links are better when they are specific to the aff - I'm down for spin, but a generic state link or a security K with no impact defense is unlikely to make me want to vote for you
Line by line is important to me, and I have yet to hear a way to evaluate debates in a reasonably fair fashion except some version of the offense/defense paradigm. If you don't want me to flow or want to change the format of the debate, I support you in your efforts but I'm also probably not the judge for you
Debates about debate (The section is a bit of a tangent for K teams) - I grow increasingly tired of the "standard moves" in these debates. I feel many ballot commodification/currency arguments are very reductionist and very much resemble whiny debaters screaming about fiat being illusory. I will obviously vote on them, but I would say I have a higher threshold than most. I care a little bit less about what the ballot does for the aff/neg, and more about what strategies, tactics, methods, alternative world views etc my ballot ought to endorse.
K Aff's/Framework- This is a debate. Defending debate norms is cool, saying "Debate bad" is cool. Being creative on both sides is more likely to get me on your side.
Topical Versions of the Aff are a good way to mitigate offense against framework. Explain to me why it solves their impact turns, not why it is similar to the aff
The Affirmative is much more likely to win if they have a counter interpretation - I find it hard to evaluate defensive "rez already exploded" or "rez poorly written" arguments without one. Rez +1 is not an argument
Arguments about jurisdiction and authority are not good ones, so long as they are answered.
Fairness is an impact. I have the inclination that debates should be fair. That being said, I don't particularly care about procedural fairness in my heart of hearts, and it's rather easy to convince me that a host of things might outweigh the need for debates to be fair.
Speaker Points: I used to have a convoluted scale of sorts here. To be honest, as I judge more often, I usually give pretty high speaker points. I think I tend to presume the best of debaters, and I often find it hard to judge their relative qualities against other debaters I have seen in a bad light. That being said, I have found that I punish very vindictively if you use exclusionary language or are a jerk.
I mainly participated in and judge policy. I will be upfront and say that while I am familiar with the rules and some of the norms of non-policy formats, but it is probably not as second nature to me as it is to you. I would not say that I judge more then 6 tournaments in either LD or PF a year, and speech is even more uncommon. These are some helpful thoughts:
PLEASE CLASH. Compare impacts. Compare frameworks. Acknowledge that your opponent made arguments, and tell me why I should care about your arguments more.
"Progressive" debate styles are cool. Theory is way too common in LD, but I don't plan to be the activist judge that stops it.
There is not a single thing that will matter to me LESS then if you stand up whenl you speak, where you speak from, etc. Accommodate yourself in the room, and I will choose my place in relation to that. It is strange how common this question is in public forum.
I'm pretty good at flowing, and the flow is how I will decide the debate. Logic over persuasion. Good policy over good personality. Tech over truth.
"Off-time" Roadmaps are helpful
Don't spread if you can't be clear. PLEASE.
I debated PF for three years at Newton South High School (class of '14). A few preferences:
- Crossfire is for asking and answering questions, not for arguing over semantics!
- Summary and final focus should cover roughly the same points. Generally, the round doesn't change so much between these speeches that the reasons to vote for you will have changed.
- Final focus shoulid have voters (and summary, too, to a lesser extent).
- Keep framework debates clean!
- Provide a weighing mechanism.
- Warrant your arguments.
I will vote off of the flow, but I think it's only fair that debaters know how I'll evaluate the round before the round begins. I will insert myself into the round as little as I can to make it as fair as I can. That means I'll only vote off of points presented as voters in the final focus speeches. It also means I won't do your cross-applying for you and that I'll listen to every *warranted* argument unless one team gives me a reason not to.
The first thing I look at is framework. If a framework is presented (either a weighing mechanism or a burden), that's how I'll look at the round. I'll evaluate the voters given by each side in order of importance according to whatever weighing mechansim is provided.
Former varsity debater at George Mason University, now the policy debate coach at Woodrow Wilson High School in Washington, DC.
First things first, I have done and enjoy both critical and policy debate, so do what you're comfortable with. No matter what style you utilize, just make sure that it is explained well. Even if I know what your argument is, I will only vote on how you articulate it. This is a communication activity, so do not forget that you have to be persuasive. I flow, and I will vote on the flow.
I don't often call for evidence. I'll call for evidence if I think you have a really sweet card (which won't be evaluated off of that) or if there's a dispute on the warrants or quality of a card important to the debate, but otherwise I see it as bordering on intervention to call for cards and interpret them if I didn't clearly hear them in the round. If I do call for evidence and I can't connect it to my flow you should probably learn your evidence better.
I show many facial expressions while judging, but I typically end up looking down at my flow writing the entire time to make sure I get as much as possible. If I do look up, don't get discouraged, I want to listen to your explanation. I will try as best as I can to follow your arguments.
Second, generally, I give speaker points based on a few criteria:
First - Make smart arguments. You don't need to be the fastest speaker to get high speaks with me. I would rather you explain things and be smart over trying to show off.
Second - Organization. I don't want a cluster of arguments spewed onto my flow. Don't mess it up.
Third - Clarity. BE CLEAR.
Fourth - Efficiency. Allocate your time wisely, you will probably be able to tell when I'm getting bored if you're spending too much time on something.
Fifth - Ethos. Persuade me. This is a communicative activity, I just want you to learn how to be well spoken. Be passionate, make it seem like you actually want to be here debating.
Sixth - BE NICE AND RESPECTFUL TO YOUR PARTNER/OPPONENTS/ME. You're all here to have fun, don't take yourself too seriously.
I don't care about profanity in moderation and when appropriate. If your speech ends up being a slew of cursing with some arguments in between and it isn't related to your specific argument (or the other team deserves it), I will tank your speaks and probably tell you after the round. Being blatantly offensive is not acceptable. By that, I don't mean linking to a rhetoric K or anything like that, I mean saying something that is legitimately offensive to the other team and you don't seem to care. I'll either look angrily at you or interrupt you. That's a sign that your speaks have been bottomed out with no chance of redemption. Be sensitive of gendered/homophobic/racist/ableist language. I will talk to you about it after the round if not already addressed within the round, just so you're aware.
In cross-x, I have no problem with being very indignant or aggressive. It's a high intensity activity and it typically comes across as somewhat competitive to me, but that's not a free pass to be rude and domineering. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be a smart ass if you can pull it off, I'll enjoy that.
Don't get caught up on one thing in cross x that is a dead end or been adequately answered, it will reflect upon your speaker points.
I don't mind small talk throughout the round. I don't want to be just a fly on the wall. But don't think that gets you anything.
Case - It's only detrimental to not have a fleshed out case debate. Both the aff and neg seem to under utilize the aff case in high school debate. Uniqueness questions for advantages, internal link defense, impact defense, internal link turns, impact turns. You have so many options.
K affs - I want a clear explanation of your method or intentional lack thereof. Framing of the round is important. You're re-situating my ballot to mean something outside of the norm of debate, you should probably detail why that's important. I have yet to really hear an offensive reason why permutations shouldn't be allowed in a methodologies debate when the neg frames the round that way, so neg teams be sure to answer the perm unless you can articulate why perms shouldn't matter. There needs to be an offensive reason why the affirmative either fits into, should be interjected into, or entirely abandons the topic. Protip: You probably aren't going to win defining words in the resolution on framework ("Resolved=Reduce by mental analysis" and "USFG means the people" aren't really round winners). If you have a defensible counter-interpretation like "the aff should be in the direction of the topic" and do the work to defend it, you can likely convince me that you aren't all that abusive. If you don't have a counter interp and reject the topic I'm a little more receptive to framework, but you can win that framework is bad.
FW - Framework can end up interesting or boring and stale. If you go for the procedural/fairness portion of framework, I want to hear a list of what kind of unpredictable cases the aff justifies, what arguments you lose, why those arguments are important/good to debate (if the aff wins that the arguments you lose are epistemologically bad, why should I evaluate them?) and why fairness is good. Winning T version solves the aff will likely mitigate most or all aff offense unless they're blatantly not at all within the topic. Going for T version, you should have justifications for policymaking being good, legal discussions being good, and some sort of external impact. T version makes sense to me as a CP or methodology debate, that makes it a lot simpler for you to frame that debate.
DA's - Impact calculus impact calculus impact calculus. Why does the DA outweigh case? Does it turn case solvency or impacts? Is there a link? What's the threshold for the aff triggering the link? Is the DA unique? These are all the basic questions that should be answered for me throughout the debate. Mitigate the aff case or solve the aff with a CP and it's done. Aff, when answering DA's, you should answer all of those questions as well, but the opposite way. Remember, you have an aff. It has impacts. Tell me why those are more important.
CP's - Be competitive. Have an offensive net benefit (solving better isn't much of a net benefit or one at all). If the Aff/CP debate ends up close, flag the presumption voter and outline which direction it goes.
Kritik's - Read whatever K you would like BUT be warned you need to explain it well. Winning the K is all about spin. Unless you've cut some great specific link and impact cards, chances are your K doesn't specifically criticize the aff, so tell me how it does. Real world examples are awesome, in fact, they are preferred. Do the right impact framing and win the role of the ballot. If you can set up a uniqueness story to turn your K into a DA, by all means kick the alt or tell me to boot the alt for you if the aff wins no alternative solvency. I'm familiar with some lit and I would like to say the lit I'm most read up on is CRT and Gender studies. Aff, don't let the neg get away with their vague hipster explanations using buzzwords. Too many high school teams seem intimidated by K's or just do it because they think it's cool without fully understanding it. No. I am a firm believer in debaters needing to learn how to debate before they can read K's or critique it. Do not go for a K you don't understand in front of me. I want explanations.
Topicality - You should provide detailed analysis of what the topic should look like. I default to competing interps. I like to hear a good T debate, but I'm not going to say "don't run T as a timesuck" because that's just inevitable. Your interpretations establish a particular vision of the topic. Give me a clear case list for that topic. Give me a T version of the aff. Give me a list of lost neg ground. In round abuse? Should I vote on potential abuse? Should I prefer fairness or education? Why?
Procedurals (Specs) - I'll vote on them. I think that ASPEC tends to be relevant given the popularity of agent CP's. I'mean fine with your trolly args...if it's won it's won. Hearing a topic specific specification with an in depth description of why that's relevant to having ground to a particular portion of the topic that provides unique education will be incredibly interesting to me.
Theory - Have an interpretation. Chances are that I won't pull the trigger on all conditionality being bad always. Should PIC's have to be functionally and textually competitive? You have to articulate the link to your argument. What did the other team do that's abusive? And if you want it to be a reason to reject the team, you have to impact it and explain how it impacted the round or establishes a bad precedent for debate. If no one says anything on it, I'll default to T outweighing theory, it's a gateway issue. Remember to slow down in theory debates.
When I debate, I have the mindset of the debaters being in charge of how I write my ballot, I encourage you to do that as well. Whether you have to force my hand or you wax eloquently about your position is up to you. But I cannot stress it enough that I will vote on the flow.
I stop prep when the flash drive comes out of your computer or when the email is sent. It's your burden of being paperless to be efficient with it. I don't want my time wasted or yours because it cuts into your RFD time. If you're having computer issues, the screen has to face me.
Random aesthetic side notes:
-Don't hide behind your computer, make eye contact with me. You're trying to win my ballot, not your computer's.
-Don't try to go faster than you are. It only makes you sound unclear or choppy.
-At least try to look like you're enjoying yourself.
Final note: I really do believe that debate is some of the best education a student can get, I am here to help you learn as well so please do not hesitate after rounds to ask me questions.
Any questions, email me. firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on your email chains: Rich.email@example.com
4 Years policy debate at Mason
One year coaching at Mason
Before you pref me, I should make you aware that I have done zero topic research or judging on this topic.
General opinions about debate:
Tech over truth- if it's a bad argument, you should've answered it.
However, this doesn't mean cards over logic- if you have a piece of evidence that belongs in the trash, don't be surprised if the other team wins that argument without evidence and just making logical arguments.
Debate is a communications activity. If I didn't vote for you on an argument you thought you made, you either weren't clear enough when you made it so it's not on my flow, or you didn't explain it enough.
Debate is a game. Do with that what you will.
Read whatever you want, I'm not going to on face reject an argument (exceptions include things like "racism good"- don't do that)
Try and make your transitions between arguments/pages clear - I don't want to miss something you say because you sounded at the same speed for 9 minutes of your speech.
I've been told I make lots of expressions - and this includes when I'm judging debates. Do with that information what you will.
Feel free to email me with questions about my philosophy or after any debate I judge you.
Default to competing interps
I need more than just a neg caselist- what's topical under you interp? What DAs/CPs don't you get? Why do you deserve getting them. This is super important when I don't know what this topic has been like.
Heavy emphasis on impact calc is very much preferred. Do limits outweigh aff innovation? Is precision more important than overlimiting?
Too little evidence comparison happens in T debates generally, so try your best to fight that trend.
SPEC args are a non starter as a voting issue unless you ask in CX and they just don't answer, or if the 2AC just decides to cheat a lot. If you read it for CP competition purposes, that's obviously fine and probably necessary.
T vs K affs
Debate is a game- should the emphasis be on fairness, or whether or not the game has some sort of educational value beyond this space- that's to be debated, but my inclination is towards it needs to be fair to work and can still be educational.
Framework is the best option- Fairness or Delib, doesn't matter to me. Do what you want. I prefer procedural fairness though.
Limits impact is the most persuasive, because it has both in and out of round implications. Followed by health care education good arguments.
If you're a K aff, you're best off just going for the impact turns- you're not going to win you meet, and you probably won't win that your CIP provides enough limits in comparison to the neg's version of the topic.
Topical version doesn't have to solve the aff- just has to provide an inroads to talk about the aff's topic matter
Framework is a procedural- not an advocacy. You can't be stuck with it.
***NOVICES*** should have to be a topical defense of the resolution. Very persuaded by a "T debating good for novice debate" standard.
Logical presses against the DA = carded presses against the DA, if it's a good argument.
Just going for impact d against the case or the DA at the end of the debate is probably not the spot you want to be in. If the aff still solves/causes a massive impact, even if it doesn't cause nuclear war, it could still turn the case/da.
Framing arguments like link determines the direction of uniqueness are helpful for me when judging these debates.
block nuance justifies new 1AR nuance- this doesn't mean "oh, they said turns the case, i'll read the no diversionary wars card the 2AC didn't get to" - but you still need to make the arg why they don't get to do that.
Politics DAs- these tend to be a lot about spin, so I'll try and default more to how you spin the evidence as to opposed what it actually says, if it's reasonable. If your card doesn't even come close to what you're trying to spin it as, you'll be in a rougher spot.
PICs without literature to substantiate them are bad. Having literature makes them marginally better.
Process/Agent are probably bad, but if that's your jam, go for it. I'll vote aff on theory as a reason to reject the team, or as a justification for the perm, or a kick the arg. Whatever happens in the debate. My default though is reject the team.
I never went for one.
I tend to lean aff on question of the roll of the ballot (the aff gets to weigh the plan) and ethical frames like util. But that doesn't mean I won't vote neg on alternative views of debates/ethics. I actually have voted on those arguments often when judging high school debate.
The less specific your K is to the topic, the worse position you're going to be in. Topic links are almost a necessity when going for the K in front of me.
You're tied to what you say. Econ DA-Cap K in the same 1NC probably won't fly.
PIKs are bad - see comments about process/agent CPs in that section
If your alt is to "do nothing" or I don't have a clear idea of what it actually does to solve your link arguments, you're not going to be in a good spot. Clear explanation of an alt that actually does something is required for you to win these kinds of debates in front of me.
If you're the aff in these debates, watch out for the classic K tricks (fiat is illusory, etc)- I don't want to vote you down on arguments like that, but I will if you drop them. Also make sure you don't lose sight of your aff- yes, read cards, but also remember the thesis of your aff probably impact turns/link turns the K in some way- if not, you can go for whatever your normal strategy is. But contextualization of impacts goes a long way towards my ballot.
Case outweighs is the best strategy vs Ks
I am, admittedly, bad at understanding K debate sometimes- so don't expect me to know all the buzzwords that your favorite author says. Make sure you actually explain some of the concepts in a way that's easy to understand- do not expect me to just know instantly what you're talking about. Likely I don't. You can save us both the trouble by debating your K at a more basic level. So I can understand you and not be frustrated that I dont, and you for not losing because I didn't understand half of the 2NR because they were debating their K at the level of a philosopher.
Condo beyond 2 is iffy, beyond 3 you better be really good at condo. Unless the aff is new. In that case, have at it.
Same things that apply to T apply to this- competing interps, impact calc, etc.
Theory is a reason to reject the team unless someone says otherwise
Theory doesn't outweigh topicality
These debates are very ticky tacky, so please go slower than your card reading speed- if you're going so fast that I'm missing arguments, it really doesn't matter that you're going so fast- because you're making arguments that won't get evaluated.
I am a policy debater for Liberty University. This is my second year of debate at Liberty.
My first year I did all policy debate. This year I have been doing more critical debate on the negative but my partner has a policy affirmative so I am still invested in both realms.
I will vote on anything. Debate is what you make it. Win the flow. Defend why your world makes the most sense.
T and FW: If you are going for this I need a good explanation of why it is important for debate. Preferably provide me some examples of why the world is a terrible place without your framework.
I am not super excited about politics but if you win the flow I will vote on it.
Other DA’s are fine
CP: whatever is fine. I don’t have a preference on CP theory.
I do love a good K but I want some practical application. Tell me why your alternative makes the world better or does something productive.
I think education is a really important part of debate; but its also a competition if you don’t win the flow you lose.
Be nice. Don’t say offensive things. I will dock your speaker points and potentially vote on it if the other team wins that I should.
Be persasive. You should probably look up sometimes especially in rebuttals.
I will add speaker points for: (but not substantially so do not be too concerned)
being good at debate
good jokes (I love puns and irony is pretty great too)
incorporating quotes specifically from good or popular music (preferably ironicly)
good facial expressions
If you made it this far end your last speech with: cats. Cats. CATS! You will be rewarded.
I'm a freshman at GW majoring in political science. I debate for GW in the American Parliamentary Debate Association league. I graduated from North Allegheny High School in PA, where I debated for four years--mainly national circuit PF, but I also have experience in policy, LD, congress, and extemp. I currently coach PF for Cypress Woods High School in Texas.
Speed is fine, but I don't prefer it. Any argument goes. But please be careful to not be offensive--watch the way you talk about sensitive issues, and if your case happens to discuss something like domestic violence, abuse, or anything else that may be triggering, please provide a trigger warning to your opponents before the round to make sure they are comfortable discussing it.
I vote on the flow. But if your argument doesn't have a warrant I won't write it down.
If you want good speaks, be cognizant of your organization and the way you use evidence in round. After the first time you read a piece of evidence, whenever you reference it again say the author+institution+a reminder of what it says.
Please be polite in crossfire. In particular, please do not try to "dominate" a female opponent by speaking louder than her, unnecessarily cutting her off, etc.
Don't hesitate to ask me any questions before the round.
I will give full disclosure after the round if I can.
Bring me food before the round for higher speaks.
I'm going to keep this short since I agree with a lot of what is said on the wiki. Where I'm from probably tells you a bit about some of my leanings, but as I grow older in debate I really, really don't care what is said as long as it is debated well.
What is debating well? To me, a good debater should be able to persuade anyone. For example, if you feel like your style of debate is one that relies on slang you picked up from reading the back of the book of whatever you're going for, I probably am not the best for you. The reason why I have leanings (i.e. framework is important, the politics DA can be useful, creatively cheating CPs are cool) is mostly because that is what I am familiar with.
Flowing, line-by-line, even if statements, overviews, writing the ballot are all good things to do.
PICs are good, condo is bad, intrinsicness is debateable.
If you can beat a team going conversation speed (remember we do policy debate so that's still at least 1.5x normal), extra speaker points are definitly in the cards.
Affiliation: 3 years debating at George Mason University
I will evaluate most any argument. I draw the line when you get near Timecube, if you are unsure whether or not you should read an argument in front of me just take a few seconds and think to yourself just how similar to Timecube is this? If it is within 1 degree of Timecube, similar to the Kevin Bacon system, I would advise against it.
I have very little knowledge on the Oceans topic (Outside of having seen the Little Mermaid once or twice), so don't expect a depth of understanding on spacific literature. If you point out cards are fishy I'll probably read it.
Also a drop is a drop, just flag it as such and extend it through the debate. You will need to explain how it influences other aspects of the debate in the rebuttals.
Can be a voting issue but is never a reverse voter
I will most likely default to competing interpretations if the debate is dead even towards both sides.
T is a time to be slower and more persuasive so act accordingly
Also no dollar less CP's or anything like that.
This is the time to start breaking down your opponents arguments
Always look at the judge during cross ex, remember you're trying to convince me
Taking prep before CX is really underutilized especially by the neg. Always try and have the block strat set before the CX of the 2AC
If I see you prepping during jumping I will bump your speaks down
Jokes are good, puns are better.
I start at 27.5 and move up and down accordingly. Imagine it like a game of chutes and ladders.
If you do something like double turn yourself however, you may have a hard time recovering.
My Experience: I am a 2nd year College policy debater for Liberty University. I’m a 2A and have generally done Policy things on the aff but my partner and I run 1 fem on the neg.
Judging Philosophy: I simultaneously think that the primary purpose of debate is education but I still think that debate is a game so even if an arg is super dumb I will vote on it if it is impacted well and the other team doesn’t answer it. I like the traditional policy framework but I am also impressed by people who can creatively cheat and win that they aren’t abusive. I don’t have a problem with Performance, K’s or anything else. Just win your arguments in front of me.
T-I have a high threshold for T if the aff dropped one arg on the flow but they are obviously topical. Need to have examples of in round abuse. Potential abuse isn’t persuasive unless you make arguments as to why people will for sure exercise that abuse in the future. If the lit doesn’t allow for that type of abuse then you probably won’t win that potential abuse has a real impact.
K’s-Here’s a list of K’s that I am somewhat familiar with: Biopower, Cap, Fem, Black Socialism, Queer Theory, Death K, Nietzche, Security. This doesn’t mean that if you are running one of these that you don’t have to explain the links or the alt because I already understand the general story. If you want to go for the K without the Alt you have to say that in the 2NR; don’t assume I’ll do the work for you. I think links need to be specific. Even if you start with a generic link in the 1NC there should be more specific links in the block or at least make analytics that articulate a specific link. I will vote on vague alts bad if the aff goes for it and you can’t explain what your alt does. If the aff is making “X inevitable args”, the neg needs to specifically combat that because those are the most persuasive aff arguments against the K.
DA’s- I think the politics DA is dumb. Don’t think its core neg ground. I especially hate the Midterms DA (I have a Midterms DA bad theory violation) . I will still vote on it if you win it obvi. Make sure your DA is unique. I love it when 1NR’s get up and give an overview that shows how the impact of the DA turns all the specific impact scenarios of the aff.
CPs- It’s pretty abusive to run multiple CP’s. CP’s whose net benefit is a plan flaw are super dumb and I probably won’t vote for them. I think that a CP with multiple planks is like having multiple CP’s and if you run the planks conditionally that’s also pretty abusive. I think it justifies the aff perming every combination of the planks and the Neg having to answer why each of those isn’t competitive. Consult CP’s are dumb.
Theory-Aff’s should be in the direction of the topic. Win in round abuse and why that abuse is bad for education. If a team extends theory in the 1AR without an impact then the 2AR can’t go for it. I don’t think the 1AR has to say “voter” if they extend the impact and said why its bad for debate in order for the 2AR to go for it. If you go for theory in the 2AR you should spend at least 3 min on it unless the other team just totally dropped it. On Framework specifically, K affs don’t win just because they say that norms are oppressive. They have to win why the oppressiveness that norms cause outweighs education for real world interaction.
General Notes- I like confidence but don’t be a jerk. I will dock speaker points for jerkiness. I won’t vote on new 2A/2NR arguments make sure the 2AR lines up with the 1AR. Please split the block in a way that makes sense. Do line-by-line. Anaylsis is better than a bunch of cards.
I will increase your points if you make me laugh. Clarity while you are reading is important.
I will increase your speaker points by .2 if you say “they hot conceded this arg and they cold conceded the other arg which means that they have double turned themselves”
I will dock your speaker points if you say “vote for us cuz we read cards”
0-26.5: you were really offensive.
26.5-27: you struggled with the technicalitys of debate and you probably dropped a whole DA or you were a jerk.
27-27.5: you’re okayish
27.5-28: you’re okay and you explain your arguments with warrants
28-28.5: you’re on top if it
28.5-29: Both technically proficient and rhetorically persuasive. It’s a thing called “ethos”
29-29.5: you rock. I am so impressed. You didn’t mess up at all
29.5-30: Probably won’t happen but if my jaw drops in your Rebuttal then you might be scoring this high.
Yes, I am a parent judge, yet travelled with my son's team for three years and judged at every tournament. I want you to convince me with your arguments, not with a bunch of PF lingo. I do not like speed for speeds sake, as I can't flow. If I can't understand what is coming out of your mouth, I can't follow you. If I can't follow you, I can't vote for you. I originally came from a speech background, I care about speaking technique. Quality of argument over quantity.
Public Forum's roots are based in "one" going before the general public, persons of diverse education, intellect and knowledge. I expect the presentation of your arguments to reflect that. Please don't dumb down because I am a "parent" judge.
Be clean: Please do not play dirty, the world is dirty enough. Be clean.
Be respectful: In crossfire, don't get muddled in stupid arguments, use them intelligently to undue the other side. Please do not be rude or condescending. There is no room for that.
Your constructives to set me up for your arguments - build your case, tell me the story.
Your rebuttals to give me reason to disagree with your opponent. Don't just attack, you need to defend.
Your summaries to clean up anything vague or muddled.
Your final focus to make me vote for you.
I love a well-executed impact turn debate . If you can give me this your speaks will show my joy
Frame the ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR. Don't just extend a bunch of cards and highlight concessions, but be explicit about why a particular argument or collection of arguments wins you the debate.
Evidence quality may become important in close debates but is a secondary concern to persuasion within the debate. This is not to say that I won't read your evidence after the debate because i probably will, but I won't evaluate warrants that are in your cards or make judgments about evidence quality unless they were fleshed out adequately in the constructives/rebuttals.
- You should assume that I am not up on the literature you have read. You should not expect me to know every acronym or all the latest developments in your DA scenario, nor should you assume that I understand all of the jargon in your K. Err on the side of ,at least, briefly explaining a concept before jumping into the intricacies of your argument.
- Defense can win debates and I have no problem pulling the trigger on presumption. I can be compelled that there is 0% risk of solvency to an affirmative case, or that there is no internal link within a DA. "There's a 1% chance that we're good for the world" is not a sufficient justification unless you provide a reason for why the opposing team's defensive argument is false or simply mitigates your claim (rather than taking it out terminally).
- I have a tendency to be somewhat expressive. If I find something stupid happening within a debate, I will likely face-palm, and/or shake my head; if I didn't understand you, I will give you a quizzical look. You should look up occasionally and take hints from the visual cues that I am sending. I won't make verbal interjections within a debate unless you're being unclear in which case i will say clear twice
- There is a fine line between being assertive and being rude. Don't cross it. If you don't know the difference, just watch for how I react
Some specific concerns:
Topicality-- I default to competing interpretations . To make these debates even close to enjoyable for me this requires an explicit list of what specific cases your interpretation permits and why this is beneficial for the activity. As for "Kritiks of T": I tend not to view these as RVIs, but instead as counter-standards that privilege an alternate debate curriculum that is more important than traditional conceptions. Negatives that plan on defending T against these criticisms should not only maintain that the 1AC does not meet what they view as fair and educational debate, but also need to go into a more specific discussion that impacts why their vision of a fair and educational debate is good and why the negative's alternate curriculum is worse in comparison.
Theory-- pretty similar to T debates but the one difference is that I will default to "reject the argument, not the team" unless given a reason otherwise. I have been known to go for cheapshots, but these require fulfilling a high standard of execution (a fully warranted and impacted explanation of your cheapshot, and closing the doors on any cross-applications the aff can make from other flows). Stylistically speaking, slowing down in these debates will help me put more ink on your side of the flow--otherwise I may miss a part of your argument that you find important. Additionally, a well-thought out interpretation and 3 warranted arguments regarding why a particular practice in debate is bad is significantly stronger than a blippy, generic re-hashing of a 10-point block.
Straight-up Strategies-- My favorite strategies often involve more than one or more of the following: an advantage counterplan, topic specific DA(s), and a solid amount of time allocated to case turns/defense. I am obviously open to hear and evaluate more generic arguments like politics, dip cap, delay counterplans, and process counterplans if that is your thing, and you should obviously go for what you are winning.
K and Performance Strategies-- I enjoy philosophy and have spent a significant chunk of my free time reading/understanding K and performance arguments. My familiarity with this style of debating makes it a double-edged sword. I will be very impressed if you command significant knowledge about the theory at hand and are able to apply them to the case through examples from popular culture or empirical/historical situations. On the other hand, if you fail to explain basic theoretical ideas within the scope of the K or fail to engage particular points of contention presented by the affirmative, I will be thoroughly unimpressed. Similarly, when opposing a K or performance, I am much more interested in arguments (analytics and cards) that not only substantively engage the K but thoroughly defend why your theorization of politics and interaction with the social should be preferred, rather than a generic 50 point survey of claims that are made by positivist thinkers. This is not to say that generic "greatest hits" style arguments have no value, but they certainly need to be backed up with a defense of the conceptual framing of your 1AC (eg, if the negative wins that the kritik turns the case or a no v2l claim, I'm not sure what "predictions good" or "cede the political" does for the affirmative). In terms of a theory/framework debate, I am much less likely to be persuaded by generic "wrong forum" claims but will be more likely to be compelled by arguments pointing to abusive sections of the specific K that is being run (eg, the nature of the alt).
It's also important to defend your impacts thoroughly. My favorite straight up affirmatives to read when I debated had big hegemony advantages. My favorite K authors to read are Wilderson (Afro-Pessimism) and other forms of Black liberation startegies. As a result, I am unlikely be swayed or guilted into voting for you if the only argument you make is a moralizing reference to people suffering/dying. This is NOT to say that I won't vote for you if you choose a strategy that relies on these impacts. However if these impacts are challenged either through impact turns or comparisons, I will not hack for you; I require an adequate refutation of why their impact calculation or understanding of suffering/death is false/incomplete and reasons for why I should prefer your framing. In other words, if the opposing team says "hegemony good and outweighs your K" or alternatively, reads a "suffering/death good" style kritik and your only comeback is "you link to our arguments and people are oppressed" without much other refutation, you will lose. When your moral high ground is challenged, own up to it and refute their assumptions/explanations.
I’m in my third year debating for Liberty University.
As a debater, I find myself often frustrated by judge philosophies that limit my strategic options in a debate, so I will make my best attempt at letting everything be up for debate.
I lean fairly policy, but I read a good amount of Ks on the neg and find those debates to be incredibly interesting. You should do what you’re good at and what will be fun for you.
I think that debate is a game and I’m fairly flow-centric, so tech generally comes before truth, but that certainly has its limits. Smart arguments should take precedent over spreading a bunch of cards.
Debate should be fun. Have fun and be nice.
I don’t have a ton of familiarity with every K author, but I’m pretty familiar with common Ks. Regardless of my familiarity, explaining your argument well is obviously better than extending taglines and stringing philosophical jargon together. Articulating a specific link to the aff and the way the alt functions is important. K tricks can be underutilized when you don’t explain how they function. (When your link or epistemology indict functions as a solvency takeout, use it that way.)
I’ll give the aff a lot of leeway on the perm, so winning a strong link is more important to me than spending a lot of time on the alt.
It often comes down to framing: if you win the framing of the debate, winning that your link is strong enough or that your alt isn’t vague is easier.
I love DA/case debates, and I especially love politics debates.
Smart analytics are more important than a lot of mediocre cards. Making smart connections between the case and the DA is important- often, affs don’t spend enough time answering good “da turns case” arguments.
In-depth case debates are better than sneaky counterplans, but I spent a good amount of the War Powers topic going for an agent counterplan. Winning/beating the net benefit is probably more important, but a well-articulated solvency deficit can be devastating. I don’t think affs utilize theory as much as they should in beating generic counterplans (process, agent, etc).
I love theory/topicality/framework debates. I love debate, and I think debates about what practices are the best for it are both interesting and productive. Because of that, I don’t have very strong preferences on a lot of theory. You should slow down and give examples of in-round abuse and/or the things that are included/not included in your interpretation. Other than condo, I think most violations are reasons to reject the argument and not the team, but I can certainly be convinced otherwise. Two conditional advocacies is probably okay, but even that’s debatable and anything more than that is definitely debatable. I am fairly strongly predisposed, however, to think that having a K and a CP/Da in the same round is a good thing/not abusive, so articulating in-round abuse is important.
Do what you’re good at, regardless of what that is. My experience is in more traditional styles of debate because of preference, not ideology. I enjoy these debates, but I need to know why what you do matters. I will be persuaded by arguments that your performance/movement/advocacy doesn’t do anything if there’s a lack of (or generally vague) explanation of what you do and what the ballot means.
Look at my good friend Kyle's paradigm. It is pretty much the same as mine and he managed to express it quite eloquently.
Here is a link to it.
I have a strong background in Congressional Debate (National Finalist/Semifinalist) and Public Forumn Debate (2014 I was at one point in the top 65 teams). I also am comfortable with many Policy debate terms though I am not a tech judge.
This translates to being comfortable with both traditional and progressive PF styles. I am alright with fast or slow speaking styles, as long as one has solid links supporting powerful impacts.
I expect you to be good at speaking as well on a varsity level especially. I want you to fill the room as well as be polite towards your opponents and teammates. Do not speak over your teammates in crossfire, etc.
Hi, I'm the Director of Speech and Debate at Poly Prep.
I did 8 years of policy debate in HS & College. I started my career coaching college policy at NYU, was then the Director of Debate at Byram Hills HS, and now have been at Poly for the last 5 years.
I see rounds as technical applications that interact with each other and split out a winner. My goal as the judge is to be the least involved with the decision I make as possible. The more you let this happen for me, the happier you will be with speaker points.
I have no preferences in the types of arguments you run - but make sure to provide a framework for how to evaluate said arguments.
**2020 TOC add-on:
I have been on the sideline from judging for the last several years due to health issues that limited the use of my hands. I am so pumped to be able to judge again. That being said - in order to make sure I have a correct flow, if you are going too fast for my hands to catch up (which for PF should be fine, but just so you know), I will unmute and say 'slower'.
Debated at and now coach for George Mason.
Please put me on the email chain! firstname.lastname@example.org
- This is a communication activity. Please be clear. You're probably going much faster than you need to be.
- The aff should defend an unconditional change from the status quo.
- Tech (usually) comes before truth.
- Presumption is a thing. I default to the least change.
- Please debate the case. Terribly constructed affs too often get away with it.
- The only types of CPs I feel any particular bias against are uniqueness CPs and new 2NC CPs. As with all things, this is a threshold/preference thing; if you win the theory debate, you're good.
- There can be zero risk of a DA.
- I did very little K debating, but am familiar with the more popular/classic lit. Historical examples and analogies are much more helpful in explaining your arguments than just dropping buzz words or author names.
- I'll vote on non-topical affirmatives. The aff probably does need to do something, though.
- Fairness is an impact, but not always the most strategic one.
- More than two conditional advocacies puts you in the danger zone.
- Contradictory conditional advocacies are probably bad for debate.
- Condo doesn't outweigh T, but I guess a fire 1AR could change my mind on this.
- Cross-ex ends after 3 minutes. Anything after that is not "on the record" but still binding when it comes to things like if the CP is conditional.
- Don't clip cards. A team that calls for an ethics challenge against a team clipping needs to provide proof in the form of an audio recording. If I agree that the team did indeed clip, they'll lose the round and get 0 speaker points. If I decide that the team did not clip, the challenging team will lose the round and get 0 speaker points. This being said, if a tournament has a different procedure for this, I'll obviously adhere to it.
- Mark your cards during the speech. If you can't provide accurately marked cards to your opponents, it makes sense to me that I should disregard that evidence.
I debated four years at Liberty University starting as a novice and two years in open and did Lincoln-Douglas debate 3 years of high school. Now I'm at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary getting my Masters in Divinity.
Overview - If you make good arguments and explain them to me then I will listen to it. Don’t assume that I know the basis for your arguments, that isn't to say I don’t understand your argument but rather I want to see that you understand your argument and can explain it to me. Don’t make me have figure it out on my own, give me the reason’s I should vote for you. Especially for the Emissions topic, I haven't been working with a debate team this semester so I am not coming in with prior knowledge of the topic. I'll easily understand your arguments but don't make me have to assume what your inherency or link is, tell me.
Topicality – For the aff I want to see an answer for the reasons your interpretation is good and why your aff creates good debates. If the negative is going for T then there should be good explanation for why the aff is abusive. For negatives I tend to like arguments about how the aff justifies other untopical affs. It really comes to framing of the impact level, like in any debate if you can win your impact framing and why yours come first I will vote on it.
Theory – I tend to think that some kind of ground will be lost inevitably on both sides so I don’t WANT to vote on it. But like with topicality if you give me specific reasons why you have lost ground or there is abuse in the round and give good explanation I will vote on it. On conditionality specifically I think that one conditional advocacy is pretty much never abusive (again it can be argued but there should be a fantastic explanation of why it is). The more conditional advocacies the more inclined I would be to vote for it. I think it can easily be argued and think is true to an extent that contradictory conditional advocacies are abusive to the aff, but on the neg I think it can also be argued why this is good to test the aff and just a test of the aff from multiple angles.
CPs – I think CPs are strategic, but a lot of times a perm isn't answered sufficiently. I think it is really strategic for the aff to argue how the cp still links to the net benefit or really any offense against the net benefit. At the same time, if there is any chance the net benefit turns case and a good risk that the perm still links to the net benefit then I am inclined to vote neg on risk of both. I also like a good solvency debate discussion here. How does the cp actually solve for the aff's advantages? Does the cp solve better then the aff? If an aff can make me question if the cp can solve for the aff then this gives me less reason to vote for the DA or that the perm can't solve.
DAs – I think the roughest place for negs to win is on the link level (they are usually generic or really weak…or both). I love good clash on uniqueness as well. I think the biggest part of the DA debate is on the impact level. Why does the aff outweigh the DA or how does the impact turn case? On DA’s whoever does the best job of impact framing will have a better chance of getting my vote.
Kritiks – I have debated a policy aff for my entire college career and lean more policy in the way I view a round. At the same time I ran kritikal arguments for an entire year almost exclusively on the negative and I am open to hear your K and have a basic knowledge of most K’s. I think the problem with most K’s (and what I have heard and seen in many judge philosophies) is that the alternative is terribly explained, so I want to hear a clear explanation of what your alt does and how it works within the round. Don’t expect me to just understand your K, as I said in my overview don’t assume I know your arg, I want to hear your explanation. Tell me why the K outweighs case and what specifically the affirmative is doing that is bad or viewed wrongly. If it is a K aff I want to hear why what you are doing is good for debate, I will talk more about this on framework.
On race K's i have not read the literature on that as much so you may have to do a little bit better explanation on your args. To clarify as well I don't always see this type of argumentation the way some judges do. I don't think because the state is racist (because no one is winning that it isn't) that it is a reason to vote the aff down. With this topic the aff is taking a negative state action so there are strong arguments about how they can deconstruct that. I think there needs to be more nuanced argument of why the aff is specifically bad and not just a generic "state is racist" link. But this is a debate to be had, and again if your explanation is good I'll vote for who does the better arguing.
Framework – On framework my overview kind of tells the story of what I want to hear on both sides. For a critical team I want to hear why your form of debate is good or creates change, this explanation is KEY to me voting for any type of K on the aff or neg. I think teams many times have good arguments but don’t have a good reason why this creates good discussion or good debates. Like I said at the beginning of my K philosophy, I tend to lean more policy and think it is easy to win that K’s create a research burden. Really…I just want to hear a good debate about whether or not different forms of debate are good and bad and a good explanation why.