Hello all! I am Melissa Cavell a novice debater on the University of Miami Debate Team. As a new comer I am still learning the ropes and believe that this is a space to make mistakes and become a better debater. Do not be concerned about being perfect, relax and do your best.

On spreading, make sure to read the tags and cites clearly. I rather you speak clearly at a decently fast pace as opposed to rapidly spewing unintelligble evidence.

CX- use this time wisely, a clever cx will win you brownie points. I do not mind your partner interjecting during this time.

DA- Be specific with the link and impacts. 

Topicality- Make sure to address this, if the neg can give a convincing argument as to why the plan isn't topical, this may become a voter. 

CP- Make sure the CP is clear and logical. Have a clear understanding of the cp you decide to run. I want to know why this is really better than the aff's plan.

K's- Must prove it's is specific to the plan and give me an understanding of what the alternative world really looks like. You must prove that the aff really is causing the harms.

Theory- Condo. It depends how this plays out in the debate. I am leaning towards condo bad, especially if the neg presents a shaky cp or k and then kicks out in the block.

General comments:

Prep time ends when the teams are flashing or emailing the evidence. Feel free to approach me with any questions or concerns you have!

Mel Cavell

andres.gannon [at] gmail.com - Updated 11/09/2013

I am not altering the manner in which I give speaker points unless the tournament provides a particular set of guidelines, recommendations, or suggested metrics for points.

Things someone could reasonably disagree with me about (big picture):

- It is productive and possible for all people to have an opinion about things the federal government is doing and should do

- Warranted arguments made from personal experience are not inherently less persuasive than warranted arguments made from those who professionally study the issues we debate, but arguments about the broader accuracy, applicability, and  relevance of a personal experience to the broader issues in question should be debated in a productive fashion

- Offense-defense obsession counterproductively incentives a race to hyperbole. I won't give you full weight of an impact just because its dropped, you have to persuade me. An argument must exceed the threshold of being a credible, coherent, warranted, and plausible warrant before being one that helps you win the debate
- I've never been convinced any aff or DA actually accessed extinction of the human race. People are more concerned with the "terminal" part of their impact than they should be.
- The most important skill we acquire from debate is learning how to make and evaluate decisions in a way that is applicable to life outside of debate. Teams that win debates oriented around this question are those that convince me their model of debate is the most productive means of doing this. (http://t23367.education-region-usa-edebate.educationtalks.info/challenge-to-the-community-t23367.html)
- Debate needs to be more technical and specialized when it comes to discussing federal policies. The issues we discuss are incredibly complex. We should dive into that, not shy away from it (http://osdir.com/ml/education.region.usa.edebate/2007-06/msg00001.html)
- Try or die is a peculiar way of making decisions
- Impact and impact defense evidence are one of the most useful things to debate when it comes to education about public policy

Things someone could reasonably disagree with me about (small picture):

- Winning uniqueness does not mean the link turn isn't true/your link is true
- Counterplans that fiat an actor other than that of the resolution are not productive for debate
- Affs don't get to define the words in their plan in whatever manner is most convenient. Evidence gets to define words from the plan.
- Many impact turns to advantages are not intrinsic
- Arbitrary roles of the ballot are not persuasive. An issue being important doesn't mean it is a good role of the ballot
- Feasibility is a factor in determining the desirability of K alternatives
- Perms are a better way to eliminate unproductive counterplan discussions than theory

Logistics:

- Debate should be a safe space. Hostility, vulgar language, unnecessary antagonism, aggression, and patronization will not be appreciated
- I may want speech docs as the debate progresses
- I don't want it to be your job to monitor for card clipping. You debate, I'll enforce the rules
- Prep time stops when the jumpdrive is on your opponents hand
- You are not helping your partner's cross-x when you get involved
- I'd rather hear your cards than call for them after the debate

REVISION: 1-3-18

So I am a 3L at Cornell Law and a former debater at the University of Miami. I debated in all 3 levels of policy with various levels of success. Having a couple of years out of the activity, I'm starting to develop what I think my preferences are. I say this not to influence how you debate, but so you know my experiences and my influences as a judge. I feel it’s better to be open about it rather than present a facade of neutrality. However, I will do my best to be arg neutral.

(

The biggest thing to me is that I love well done research. I spent most of my time in debate cutting and explaining new args, and I feel that is one of the most important skills that I developed.

Be kind to each other; don't personally attack each other. This should be a safe space to present ideas and discuss the merits. Have fun :)

More detailed analysis of types or args.

1. Conditionality:

In short, don't abuse it. I'm fine with 1 K and 1 CP. The more args you run, the more likely I am to vote on it. Still, if you are persuasive, I'll vote either way. I don't believe that there are spillover effects from my decision, so if your only arg is potential abuse, I'm not likely to vote for you. This is true of all theory.

2. Kritiks:

I feel the best way to explain my beliefs about K's are that if I cannot explain what you are arguing to my mom in a way she understands, I'm not likely to vote on it. So Security, Cap, Fem IR are all examples of good Ks I understand and can explain to the hypothetical reasonable person (Ie my Mom).

You are more likely to win if you focus on why the plan is bad instead of impact or advantage links.

Full disclosure, "I view myself as a policymaker and thus I am interested in pragmatics."

Update:

The one off K is my least favorite arg in debate. Keep in that in mind. I will and have voted for it but....................

(This is especially when it's clear the 1NC was prepared months ago and there is no adjustment for what the aff actually is and represents)

Also, I find framework persuasive against Ks, especially one off Ks.

3. Non-Policy Affs

Not my favorite, but I will vote on them.

I feel both sides of the education debate lack the personal element. If impact out education, personal stories on how you actually implemented the education you've gained from your style of debate are far more persuasive than cards.

4. Counterplans:

I like them. Have a good solvency evidence. I'm down for all counter plans, but I do find Consult CPs and PICs theoretically dubious, especially if you PIC out of a very small part of the plan. I love agent counterplans and I love the Constitutional Convention CP.

5. DAs:

I love creative DAs. Running non-traditional, but well researched DAs, are some of my favorite args in debate. Make sure to give a clear story in the 2AR. Impact calc is an underused and persuasive way to easily win rounds.

6. Theory:

Dinger Quote "The only theoretical arguments that I believe are “voting issues” are conditionality and topicality. The rest are just reasons to reject the argument and/or allow the other side to advocate similar shenanigans. This is true even if the other side drops the argument in a speech."

The more I have been in law school, the more I realize most of our rules are lifted straight from the legal code. Any references to the legal code are highly valued.

7. Topicality:

Not a huge fan, but if you win it, you win. As someone that has ran questionable policy topical plans much through College, I defer to what is reasonable.

I do feel it’s a viable option against non-topical plans. I do not think it is a reverse voter.

Update/clarification:

I defer to reasonability when there is a Aff that is defending a topic affirmative (Ie a traditional policy AFF). I find topicality persuasive against non-traditional/non-topical/non-plan-text AFF.

Other stuff you may care about if you are still reading: (IE random things that have come up in debates I judged)

Truth over tech: Based on my limited legal knowledge, a dropped arg is a true arg unless it’s so incredible false that I in good conscience cannot vote for it.

Evidence: I'll take quality over quantity. I won't credit parts of it not read in round. However, if your evidence is great and you don't explain it, I will hesitate to apply it. I think the framing of evidence, especially in the 2AR and 2NR are crucial. I rather not read evidence, but I'm not against it.

Update:

In close debates, I default to quality of the evidence.

Paperless: Try to be quick. Prep stops when you give them your flash drive.

Integrity: Don't cheat.

If you have any questions, email me at Votesgeorge@gmail.com

As a judge, I assess the round based on the clarity and persuasiveness of the arguments presented by each team. That means that the ideas used in round should be:

(a) logical. Present me with a clear explanation of potential harms and ways to view the debate. 

(b) convincing. This is where evidence comes into play, but use your cards wisely. Warrants are important.

(c) relevant. The plan presented by the affirmative is the starting point for discussion. If any of the sides decides to go for a critical argument, it must create a significant in-round impact (i.e. I should be able to understand the substance of your kritik and the way my ballot can help to resolve the issue). If it is a policy argument, it should be linked to the plan.

The more you link off-case and case, the better. Engage in the dialogue with the other team, that’s the only way to test the validity of their arguments.

Topicality:

I’m pretty strict when it comes to topicality. That is, I assume that the affirmative should defend the resolution and the real-life consequences of the plan, unless you convince me otherwise. If you tell me that the state is evil, go for it, but you have to prove that any way of upholding the resolution is impossible and/or wrong. In general, the affirmative should have a counter-interpretation and be reasonable.

Theory:

In order to win on theory, the team will have to prove that the round was unfair. Condo is fine, but can become a problem if you kick an argument in the block. If the negative reads a CP and a K that contradict each other (and the aff points it out), I am more likely to question the solvency of the alternative and will be more willing to vote on the perm.

DAs:

The two parts of a DA that matter for me are the impact story and the link story. Both should be present in each of your speeches if you want to win the argument. This especially applies to politics: I want to know why the plan will use political capital, switch votes, etc.

CPs:

Just don’t cheat. The aff is bound by the resolution and by fiat, so super-specific PICs and delay CPs are unfair. Other than that, the neg does have a right to test the solvency mechanism of the plan, but you should have a solvency advocate and a reasonable net benefit to the CP.

Kritiks:

It can be a great argument if it is (1) specific to the plan and (2) run well. Questioning the philosophical assumptions of the plan is important, but only if you can show an alternative way to view reality. It applies to all Ks, from Cap to Race/Identity arguments. Simply labeling the plan as a lie that perpetuates eternal injustice is not enough to reject it – you have to prove that the aff specifically causes the harms. As long as you do that, you can retain the alt or use the K as a reason to reject the plan.

General comments:

I think that debate is a great educational opportunity. Non-traditional arguments are more than welcome, if it keeps the debate interesting and fair.

An aside from me as a science major: each of your arguments should be falsifiable. That is, if you say there are invisible unicorns in the room and only you can see them, no one can prove you wrong – but that’s probably not a type of argument you want to use. In the context of the debate space, if you say capitalism is the root of all evil/your 1AC performance enlightened the debate community, there should be a theoretical way for the other team to disprove your claim.

Ethos:

Words are powerful. Do not use arguments in an offensive way. If you make a personal attack on your opponents, you hurt their chances to participate and learn, which gives me a separate reason to vote you down. Be respectful and nice, and don’t forget to have fun!

DOD, University of Central Florida

I truly don't have argumentative predispositions. I have listened to, and voted upon, anything and everything. In other words, I will gladly listen to arguments that perhaps some others will not: T is not voting, T is voting, T is reverse-voting, I am still open to args. like "K's are illegitimate."  It's your activity, and I think it is healthy to debate about what debate should look like. There are some non-debatable rules: speech time limits, someone gets to win and someone has to lose,....etc.

Like almost all judges, my default position is to judge strictly on the line-by-line. However, I am even somewhat eager to be invited to judge in a different fashion. In recent rounds, when one team has challenged line-by-line adjudication; I have been surprised that those who seem to prefer line-by-line debate were not really either willing or able to defend it. Do whatever you like to do, but be ready to defend it if challenged; cause if you just assume that I won't take such arguments seriously, well then you have the wrong critic.

For Policy Debate:

I started my debate career probably long before your parents met, much less before you were born. I was a Prosecuting Attorney under Janet Reno and still practice occasionally when I'm not teaching or at debate tournaments. I prefer and my expertise is in policy round argumentation but I can be convinced to vote for critical argumentation when done correctly. Barring tournament rules, Flash time is not prep. Email speech docs. Points are between 28-30, barring bizzarro argumentation, presentation or decorum (This does not include personal narratives or performance arguments with a purpose - they are fine). If you speak (debate) worse than the other debaters in a Round, you will get lower points. Quick and clear is OK. Unclear is not. I will let you know at least once - then it's up to you. I will read evidence in a close debate when I think it is at issue because cards exceedingly often don't prove what they are being offered to prove. You have to point it out unless I think the claim is outlandish.

For LD:

See the above. I was a policy debater. So LD theory which deviates from policy may be lost on me. You've been warned. Critiks and CPs are ok. So are theory args against them. Standard frameworks which stifle all critical debate won't fly. Tell me why your framework should be applied in this debate.

I debate for the University of Miami. Here are somethings you want to keep in mind when I am your judge:

1). I hate untopical bullshit affs. Those affs are just cheating strategies, intolerable.

2). I have a high threshold for voting on theory. But if you completely drop the conditionality argument, for example, I will vote you down.

3). Make sure during your speech you tell me a coherent story, and that includes Uniqueness, link, internal link and impact.

4). If you are doing a Kritik, make sure you explain the link and the alternative very well.

5). Framework debate is important in clashing debates (policy vs critical).

Leandra Lopez

Background:
Debated at Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart (4 years), University of Miami (3 years) and University of Mary Washington (1 year)

Debate thoughts:
The affirmative should read and defend a topical plan that is an example of the current resolution. Advantages should stem from the theoretical passage of that plan. Certainly, it is the burden of the negative to make persuasive arguments for why this is true.

Topicality and conditionality are reasons to reject the team. Other theory arguments are typically reasons to reject the argument.

Critiques should link to the plan, as opposed to the advantages. Alternatives typically have serious competition problems and solvency deficits. The more the negative does to deal with these issues, the better.

If the 2NR goes for a CP or a critique, I assume the status quo is not an option unless the 2NR specifies otherwise.

Evidence quality over quantity.

Flow.

Arguments I do not want to hear:
-Death is good.
-Communism is good.

Please be respectful – of your opponents, your partner, the judge, the classroom.

If you have questions, feel free to ask. For questions or the email chain - leandrallopez@gmail.com

I'm an open policy debater at the University of Miami and I've run your run of the mill kind of stuff like CPs, Ks, DAs, etc. I debate for Dinger, so if you need further explanations default to his philosophy. As a judge, I've judged quite a few tournaments in Broward and Dade counties in the highschool circuit for the past two years. For the surveillance topic I have taught the topic for MDUDL but haven't judged many rounds. 

I'll give you the short of it first: Arguments founded in quality evidence that has been thoroughly explained will win you the round. Give me good arguments with zero evidence, I won't vote you up. Give me great evidence with little to no explanation, I won't vote you up. As a judge, I'd like you to tell me how to vote and why. Basically, please know what you're talking about.

Case/Disads

I like this. Good case debate is nice. Get specific on links and impacts and explain how they interact. If you want to win, the 2AR and 2NR better have some impact calculus. 

CPs

I tend to like these as long as they aren't dubious. Consult CPs, Delay CPs, PICs tend to be included under the list of dubious. Make me understand why the CP is perferable to the plan (i.e. net benefits, and solvency defecits) 

Kritiks

My same idea applies here, give me good evidence and good explanations. If you can't explain how the kritik links to the plan, how the kritik solves back the harms of the aff, and how it is mutually exclusive from the plan, then I probably will not vote you up. Floating PIKs are dubious.Don't just say a bunch of words pertaining to -isms and -ology, apply them to specific arguments that happen in the round while mitigating the harms of the aff. This will put me a much more comfortable place to vote for your kritik. 

Cross-ex 

It's important. Don't sound stupid(especially if you're explaining your own arguments). Don't let your partner sound stupid. Attempt to make your opponent sound stupid. At the same time, don't beat a dead horse. Make your point and move on. This is an easy place for you to explain to me what is going on and get speaker points. If you're lost this is also a good place for you to figure out what's going on(I won't punish you for trying to figure stuff out).

Theory

Don't let theory go unanswered. However, if they don't extend any voters on it, I won't vote on it. I don't really want to vote for theory unless they're pretty abusive and time is spent on it. I'd prefer you to use theory as a reason for me to give you leeway on other arguments. Like if the 1AR runs condo bad and maybe drops some answers on the kritik, I'll give the 2AR some flexbility on answering back the kritik (you know because condo is so harmful it didn't allow you to debate properly)  

T

If you're topical you're topical, if you aren't you aren't. I'll probably default to reasonability unless you leave it unanswered. What you should take outta these two paragraphs is never leave voting issues unanswered.

Intergrity

You don't want me to catch you cheating.

Civility

Be nice and respectful (to one another and to myself.) At the end of the day it's just debate, don't personally attack other people. You don't want me to catch you personally attacking other people. 

Prep Time

Keep track of yourselves and your opponents. You don't want me to catch you stealing prep time. 

Other Stuff

As a microbiology major, I've seen alot of dubious science happening in debates. Don't contribute to the awfulness-it makes my soul weep. Be smart, be creative,be strategic. I will reward you accordingly with speaks. If you have any issues, questions or comments post round e-mail me at b.puodzius@umiami.edu 

Anna Shah

University of Miami Policy Debater (two years)

1. Kritiks: I tend to favor more policy based arguments. If you do go for a kritik, clearly explain how your alternative solves and how the plan links to your K. Do not just reiterate the impacts.

2. Topicality: I go with good is good enough. The neg has to show why their counter interpretation is significantly better for debate for me to consider voting for it.

3. Affirmative: The aff should read a plan text that is similar to a United States Federal Government policy. I believe that the aff should specify an agent but it is the negative's job in crossex to bring this up.

4. Theory: I do not consider most theory arguments to be a voting issue. 

5. Evidence: Your evidence should actually say, not just hint at, what you are claiming it says. Use evidence from quality sources that is as recent as possible.

6. Overall: In each of the speeches, especially in the rebuttals, clearly outline each of your arguments and include impact calculus to show why you are winnng. To get higher speaker points, be clear, make smart and structured arguments, and be engaged throughout the entire debate. 

Good luck and have fun!

I am a pretty open-minded judge. Analysis, framing, and a hint of ethos will win you the debate. A few general comments and then onto my specific feelings about arguments.

General

-CX is important and binding, use it well

-One well highlighted and warranted card is better than three low quality one liners

-Flashing does not count as prep time

DA

-The more specific the better, explain how the link works

-Defend the impact well, the affirmative can often subsume a DA with their impacts

-If you can please read something which is not a Politics DA

CP

-Give me a good solvency debate, why is this a preferable idea?

-Make them clever, I will entertain all manner of odd solutions

-Constitutional Conventions will increase speaker points

K

-I like these arguments

-That being said please explain your arguments, don't read a bunch of postmodern philosophy and expect me to make sense of it

-Run a cap K with a reject alt and you will probably loose

-Run a cap K with a historical materialist alternative and you might win

-I am not persuaded by ridiculous alternatives, I will usually view the alternative as vote for the status quo because the K is a prior question to policymaking

-Do good link work and impact framing and you will be able to sell me on the alternative better

-Winning a prior question framework is important

T

-I generally default affirmative if they are reasonably topical

-If there is a blatant violation which is well explained I could be persuaded to vote negative

Framework

-Negative's best weapon against advocacy and no plan affirmatives

-If framework is questioned it becomes very important for me. A question of what we are debating about comes before the debate itself.

Theory

-Condo is probably not a voter as long as there is not blatant contradiction or extreme abuse of multiple worlds

-PIKs might be cheating

-Floating PIKs are definately cheating

Performance 

-Not a huge fan, but I will evaulate it how you tell me to

-If your strategy is to make the other team uncomfortable by using offensive or loaded terms please do not do this. Debate is a location where everyone should be able to participate and learn, don't make the other team feel inferior or threatened. 

Any questions just ask me!

Patrick Waldinger 

Assistant Director of Debate at the University of Miami

Assistant Debate Coach at the Pine Crest School 

10+ years judging 

Yes, please put me on the speech doc: dinger AT gmail

Updated 9.2.14

Here are the two things you care about when you are looking to do the prefs so I’ll get right to them:

1. Conditionality: I think rampant conditionality is destroying the educational aspects of debate slowly but surely. You should not run more than one conditional argument in front of me.

Reading a K without an alternative and claiming it is a “gateway” issue doesn’t count. First, it likely contradicts with your CP, which is a reason that conditionality is both not educational and unfair. Second, there are no arbitrary “gateway” issues – there are the stock issues but methodology, for example, is not one of them the last time I read Steinberg’s book.

I also think there is a big difference between saying the CP is “conditional” versus “the status quo is always an option for the judge”. Conditional implies you can kick it at any time, however, if you choose not to kick it in the 2NR then that was your choice. You are stuck with that world. If the “status quo is always an option” for me, then the negative is saying that I, as the judge, have the option to kick the CP for them. You may think this is a mere semantic difference. That’s fine – but I DON’T. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

The notion that I (or any judge) can just kick the CP for the negative team seems absurd in the vein of extreme judge intervention. Can I make permutation arguments for the aff too? That being said, if the affirmative lets the negative have their cake and eat it too, then I’ll kick CPs left and right. However, it seems extremely silly to let the negative argue that the judge has the ability to kick the CP. In addition, if the negative never explicitly states that I can kick the CP in the 2NR then don’t be surprised when I do not kick it post-round (3NR?).

Finally, I want to note the sad irony when I read judge philosophies of some young coaches. Phrases similar to “conditionality is probably getting out of hand”, while true, show the sad state of affairs where the same people who benefited from the terrible practice of rampant conditionality are the same ones who realize how bad it is when they are on the other side.

2. Kritiks: In many respects going for a kritik is an uphill battle with me as the judge. I don’t read the literature and I’m not well versed in it. I view myself as a policymaker and thus I am interested in pragmatics. That being said, I think it is silly to dismiss entirely philosophical underpinnings of any policy.

Sometimes I really enjoy topic specific kritiks, for example, on the immigration topic I found the idea about whether or not the US should have any limits on migration a fascinating debate. However, kritiks that are not specific to the topic I will view with much more skepticism. In particular, kritiks that have no relation to pragmatic policymaking will have slim chance when I am judging (think Baudrillard).

If you are going for a K, you need to explain why the PLAN is bad. It’s good that you talk about the impact of your kritik but you need to explain why the plan’s assumptions justify that impact. Framing the debate is important and the frame that I am evaluating is surrounding the plan.

I am not a fan of kritiks that are based off of advantages rather than the plan, however, if you run them please don’t contradict yourself. If you say rhetoric is important and then use that same bad rhetoric, it will almost be impossible for you to win. If the 1AC is a speech act then the 1NC is one too.

I believe that the affirmative should defend a plan that is an example of the current high school or CEDA debate resolution. I believe that the affirmative should defend the consequences of their plan as if the United States or United States federal government were to actually enact your proposal.

The remainder:

“Truth over tech”? I mull this over a lot. This issue is probably the area that most judges grapple with, even if they seem confident on which side they take. I err of the side of "truth over tech" but that being said, debate is a game and how you perform matter for the outcome. While it is obviously true that in debate an argument that goes unanswered is considered “true”, that doesn’t mean there doesn’t have to be a logical reason behind the argument to begin with. That being said, I will be sensitive to new 2AR arguments as I think the argument, if logical, should have been in the debate earlier.

Topicality: Topicality is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. I default to reasonability on topicality. It makes no sense to me that I should vote for the best interpretation, when the affirmative’s burden is only to be good. The affirmative would never lose if the negative said there is better solvency evidence the affirmative should have read. That being said, I understand that what “good’ means differs for people but that’s also true for what “better” is: both are subjective. I will vote on competing interpretations if the negative wins that is the best way to frame the debate (usually because the affirmative doesn’t defend reasonability).

The affirmative side has huge presumption on topicality if they can produce contextual evidence to prove their plan is topical. Specific examples of what cases would be/won’t be allowed under an interpretation are important.

People think “topical version of the aff” is the be all end all of topicality, however, it begs the question: is the aff topical? If the aff is topical then just saying “topical version of the aff” means nothing – you have presented A topical version of the aff in which the affirmative plan is also one.

Basically I look at the debate from the perspective of a policy debate coach from a medium sized school: is this something my team should be prepared to debate?

As a side note – often times the shell for topicality is read so quickly that it is very unclear exactly what your interpretation of the topic is. Given that, there are many times going into the block (and sometimes afterwards) that I don’t understand what argument you are making as to why the affirmative is not topical. It will be hard for me to embrace your argument if I don’t know what it is.

Counterplans: It is a lot easier to win that your counterplan is theoretically legitimate if you have a piece of evidence that is specific to the plan. And I mean SPECIFIC to the plan, not “NATO likes to talk about energy stuff” or the “50 states did this thing about energy one time”. Counterplans that include all of the plan are the most theoretically dubious. If your counterplan competes based on fiat, such as certainty or timeframe, that is also theoretically dubious. Agent counterplans and PICS (yes, I believe they are distinct) are in a grey area.  The bottom line: the counterplan should not be treated as some throw away argument – if you are going to read one then you should defend it.

Theory: I already talked a lot about it above but I wanted to mention that the only theoretical arguments that I believe are “voting issues” are conditionality and topicality. The rest are just reasons to reject the argument and/or allow the other side to advocate similar shenanigans. This is true even if the other side drops the argument in a speech.

Other stuff you may care about if you are still reading:

Aspec: If you don’t ask then cross-examination then I’ll assume that it wasn’t critical to your strategy. I understand “pre-round prep” and all but I’m not sure that’s enough of a reason to vote the affirmative down. If the affirmative fails to specify in cross-examination then you may have an argument. I'm not a huge fan of Agent CPs so if this is your reasong to vote against the aff, then you're probably barking up the wrong tree. 

**Addendum to ASPEC for "United States"**: I do think it is important for the aff to specify in cross-ex what "United States" means on the college topic. The nature of disads and solvency arguments (and potentially topicality) depend on what the aff means by "United States". I understand these are similiar arguments made by teams reading ASPEC on USFG but I feel that "United States" is so unique and can mean so many different things that a negative team should be able to know what the affirmative is advocating for. 

Evidence: I put a large emphasis on evidence quality. I read a lot of evidence at the end of the debate. I believe that you have to have evidence that actually says what you claim it says. Not just hint at it. Not just imply it. Not just infer it. You should just read good evidence. Also, you should default to reading more of the evidence in a debate. Not more evidence. More OF THE evidence. Don't give me a fortune cookie and expect me to give the full credit for the card's warrants. Bad, one sentence evidence is a symptom of rampant conditionality and antithetical to good policy making. 

Paperless: I only ask that you don’t take too much time and have integrity with the process, e.g., don’t steal prep, don’t give the other team egregious amounts of evidence you don’t intend to read, maintain your computers and jump drives so they are easy to use and don’t have viruses, etc.

Integrity: Read good arguments, make honest arguments, be nice and don’t cheat. Win because you are better and not because you resort to cheap tricks.

Civility: Be nice. Debate is supposed to be fun. You should be someone that people enjoy debating with and against – win or lose. Bad language is not necessary to convey an argument.