Top Level:

My approach to judging debate has evolved in recent years in an effort to avoid judge intervention and to reward which teams give the best speeches.

• I exclusively flow on paper during debates and do not follow along with speech documents. Given this, I only examine evidence after the debate if specifically requested. It is crucial for debaters to effectively communicate the warrants of their evidence and to evaluate their opponents' evidence for validity and context. If you'd like me to read certain pieces evidence after the debate is over, please instruct me to do so in your speech. Otherwise, I'll decide based off the explanation given during the debate.

• While I do not have a preference for any specific type of argument, I am most familiar with policy debate (i.e., topicality, counterplans, and disadvantages). I believe that 1AC should affirm the resolution in some way. Although I am open to critiques, it is important that links are contextualized to the 1AC.

• To ensure I am fully engaged, I rarely use my laptop during rounds. I recommend speaking at 80% of your normal speed if clarity is an issue for you.

Please put me on the email chain: mbenjc@gmail.com

Personal Preferences:

• As I spend more time judging, I am developing somewhat higher standards for what constitutes a 'minimally viable argument' in the 2AC. For example, if the 2AR wants theory to be a viable option, the offense extended by the 1AR should be in the 2AC (or at least justified as new by the 1AR). I feel similarly about 'links to the net benefit' - this is often claimed, but not warranted by the 2AC.

email: eforslund@gmail.com

Copied and Pasted from my judge philosophy wiki page.

Recent Bio:

Director of Debate at Pace Academy

15 years judging and coaching high school debate. First at Damien High School then at Greenhill. Generally only judge a handful of college rounds a year.

Zero rounds on the current college topic in 2020.

Coached at the University of Wyoming 2004-2005.

I have decided to incentivize reading strategies that involve talking about the specifics of the affirmative case. Too many high school teams find a terrible agent or process cp and use politics as a crutch. Too many high school teams pull out their old, generic, k's and read them regardless of the aff. As an incentive to get away from this practice I will give any 2N that goes for a case-only strategy an extra point. If this means someone who would have earned a 29 ends up with a 30, then so be it. I would rather encourage a proliferation of higher speaker points, then a proliferation of bad, generic arguments. If you have to ask what a case strategy involves, then you probably aren't going to read one. I'm not talking about reading some case defense and going for a disad, or a counterplan that solves most of the aff. I'm talking about making a majority of the debate a case debate -- and that case debate continuing into the 2NR.

You'll notice "specificity good" throughout my philosophy. I will give higher points to those teams that engage in more specific strategies, then those that go for more generic ones. This doesnt mean that I hate the k -- on the contrary, I wouldn't mind hearing a debate on a k, but it needs to be ABOUT THE AFF. The genero security k doesnt apply to the South Korean Prostitutes aff, the Cap k doesnt apply to the South Korea Off-Shore Balancing aff - and you arent likely to convince me otherwise. But if you have an argument ABOUT the affirmative --especially a specific k that has yet to be read, then you will be rewarded if I am judging you.

I have judged high-level college and high school debates for the last 14 years. That should answer a few questions that you are thinking about asking: yes, speed is fine, no, lack of clarity is not. Yes, reading the k is ok, no, reading a bunch of junk that doesn't apply to the topic, and failing to explain why it does is not.

The single most important piece of information I can give you about me as a judge is that I cut a lot of cards -- you should ALWAYS appeal to my interest in the literature and to protect the integrity of that literature. Specific is ALWAYS better than generic, and smart strategies that are well researched should ALWAYS win out over generic, lazy arguments. Even if you dont win debates where you execute specifics, you will be rewarded.

Although my tendencies in general are much more to the right than the rest of the community, I have voted on the k many times since I started judging, and am generally willing to listen to whatever argument the debaters want to make. Having said that, there are a few caveats:

1. I don't read a lot of critical literature; so using a lot of terms or references that only someone who reads a lot of critical literature would understand isn’t going to get you very far. If I don’t understand your arguments, chances are pretty good you aren’t going to win the debate, no matter how persuasive you sound. This goes for the aff too explain your argument, don’t assume I know what you are talking about.

2. You are much better off reading critical arguments on the negative then on the affirmative. I tend to believe that the affirmative has to defend a position that is at least somewhat predictable, and relates to the topic in a way that makes sense. If they don’t, I am very sympathetic to topicality and framework-type arguments. This doesn’t mean you can’t win a debate with a non-traditional affirmative in front of me, but it does mean that it is going to be much harder, and that you are going to have to take topicality and framework arguments seriously. To me, predictability and fairness are more important than stretching the boundaries of debate, and the topic. If your affirmative defends a predictable interpretation of the topic, you are welcome to read any critical arguments you want to defend that interpretation, with the above stipulations.

3. I would much rather watch a disad/counterplan/case debate than some other alternative.

In general, I love a good politics debate - but - specific counterplans and case arguments are THE BEST strategies. I like to hear new innovative disads, but I have read enough of the literature on this year’s topic that I would be able to follow any deep debate on any of the big generic disads as well.

As far as theory goes, I probably defer negative a bit more in theory debates than affirmative. That probably has to do with the fact that I like very well thought-out negative strategies that utilize PICS and specific disads and case arguments. As such, I would much rather see an affirmative team impact turn the net benefits to a counterplan then to go for theory (although I realize this is not always possible). I really believe that the boundaries of the topic are formed in T debates at the beginning of the year, therefore I am much less willing to vote on a topicality argument against one of the mainstream affirmatives later on in the year than I am at the first few tournaments. I’m not going to outline all of the affs that I think are mainstream, but chances are pretty good if there are more than a few teams across the country reading the affirmative, I’m probably going to err aff in a close T debate.

One last thing, if you really want to get high points in front of me, a deep warming debate is the way to go. I would be willing to wager that I have dug further into the warming literature than just about anybody in the country, and I love to hear warming debates. I realize by this point most teams have very specific strategies to most of the affirmatives on the topic, but if you are wondering what advantage to read, or whether or not to delve into the warming debate on the negative, it would be very rewarding to do so in front of me -- at the very least you will get some feedback that will help you in future debates.

Ok, I lied, one more thing. Ultimately I believe that debate is a game. I believe that debaters should have fun while debating. I realize that certain debates get heated, however do your best not to be mean to your partner, and to the other team. There are very few things I hate more than judging a debate where the teams are jerks to each other. Finally, although I understand the strategic value to impact turning the alternative to kritiks and disads (and would encourage it in most instances), there are a few arguments I am unwilling to listen to those include: sexism good, racism good, genocide good, and rape good. If you are considering reading one of those arguments, don’t. You are just going to piss me off.

do whatever you want. just be nice. low chance i vote on theory unless it's dropped. not familiar with k lit so if that's what you want to do make sure you explain it well.

Beomhak Lee

Updated March 2021

Affiliation - Dallas Jesuit.

If you have any concerns/questions/asking for email chain: lbh7746@gmail.com

CJR topic - Very interesting topic. I have pretty good exposure to the topic. Yet, this still does not justify teams in speaking jargons. Personally, I find DA and CP literature on this topic quite disappointing (unless the link narrative can be specific to the aff). So I believe this perhaps is a good opportunity for some teams to engage in critical literature deeper than before.

Stylistic Issues:

- Speed is fine. But clarity >>> speed. Especially given the virtual-ness of debating, I would suggest going a bit slower.

- Please line by line. If you don't even at least attempt to line by line, your speaks will suffer.

- Depth outweighs breadth. One well-warranted argument beats numerous poorly explained/constructed arguments. This applies to the cards too. Poorly and disjointedly highlighted cards are bad. Call them out on it.

- No I don't take prep for emailing/flashing unless it's excessive.

- Usually, it is tech > truth but not all the time.

- Stop being a jerk. There is a fine line between being passionate/competitive vs. being a total jerk.

- I am totally fine with any style of argument. You do you. I am here to listen. Obviously, this excludes arguments like racism or sexism good :)

- This is probably obvious but I think it's important. For me to vote on an argument, it has to make sense in my head. While I will probably understand the general thesis for most of your arguments myself, every argument (K, DA, CP, T, K aff, etc.) requires a nuanced explanation that is different, depending on the circumstances of the round. So, spend some time doing that in the round.

Topicality

Love them if done well. Personally think they are very underutilized in this topic. Will default to competing interpretations if not convinced otherwise. T is all about weighing your interpretation versus theirs. Specificity (i.e. examples of how the aff would explode limits or gut grounds) is good. Just saying meaningless phrases like 'they explode limits' won't be convincing at all.

Counterplans/Disadvantages

Most of my 2NRs were CP+DA or DA alone. More specific your evidence (solvency advocate or link) is to the aff, the better. I think solvency advocate for the CP should be a thing most of the time. If you don't, it's not really a theoretical reason to lose but rather a solvency question. Impact calculus on DAs usually is really really really important. Use the impact debate to frame the ballot and be comparative (especially if you are going for the DA without the CP with only the case defense, which by the way is heavily under-utilized). Good link narratives on DAs will be awarded. Smart analytics will be awarded as well.

Kritiks

Love them. But, if you start to talk in disjointed vocabularies without contextualizing the K to the aff, then the K is not so loving. I think that aff should generally get to weigh the action of the plan, though I can be convinced otherwise in many ways - so put in the work.

Winning a general explanation of the world is not enough. Use the specific link and internal link narratives to prove why the aff would make X worse. To do that, I think real-world manifestations or examples help a ton. Way too many teams just assume "if I win a link, then the impact happens" - welp, a good internal link work will be awarded. Long overviews are mostly useless. Line by line is good.

K/Non-traditional affirmative

Personally, I find these affs way more interesting than listening to generic process CP debates per say. Clarity on what the aff does (i.e. the mechanism of the aff) is the single most important thing to explain to me. Personal narrative, music, poetry - anything is fine with me. Just have a particular reason why you included those parts in 1AC. You need to have at least some relations to the topic, and some reason why you don't use governmental institutions. You still need a reason why your ROB is good, and for the neg teams going for FW, that must be challenged. As always, impact debates on FW must be comparative.

Theory

Chill for a second and SLOW DOWN

Don't run New Affs bad in front of me - I'm not gonna vote on it.

Conditionality is usually good - unless multiple conditional contradictory world is a thing (but is it a theoretical reason to reject the team? Eh - though I think it would benefit you substantive-wise if used well)

Other theory arguments (generally) probably are a reason to reject the argument, not the team UNLESS I'm convinced otherwise. If they drop theory, then the story is quite different (assuming that you invest some time into it).

ETC.

I really love this activity. There probably is a reason why I keep in touch with debate and the community even though I decided not to debate in college. If I happen to judge you, know that I will judge debates as fairly as I can Please respect each other and have fun.

Also, for more nitty-gritty judging philosophies on the style of arguments, look into these judges’ philosophies: Tracy McFarland, Ryan Gorman, and Dan Lingel. They introduced/influenced me a lot (like debate + life) that we almost have a similar "view of debate" if that makes sense. If three judges contradict in their judging philosophy, it would be on my therapy list.

Jake LoRocco

Updated 1/10/2023

-

About Me

I did policy debate for four years in high school at Dallas Jesuit. I did not debate in college but judged throughout and stayed involved in the community.

Currently judging/volunteering with the Boston Debate League.

-

General

I'm good with any type of argument (as long as it's not racist, sexist, etc...) in any form (K, DA, CP, etc...). No matter the argument though, tell me why it's important and why I should vote for it. And please make it aff specific.

You can talk as fast as you want (and I will let you know if you aren't clear).

I don't think new affs bad is a legitimate argument.

Updated Pre-Emory 1/9/2020

Email chain please: croark@trinity.edu

Professor and Assistant Director of Debate at Trinity University, Coach at St. Mark's School of Texas

I view my role as judge to be an argument critic and educator above everything else. As part of that, you should be mindful that a healthy attitude towards competition and the pursuit of kindness and respect are important.

Biases are inevitable but I have been in the activity for +10 years and heard, voted, and coached on virtually every argument. I genuinely do as much as possible to suspend my preconceived beliefs and default to explanation/comparison.

Quality > quantity – 1NC’s with a high volume of bad arguments will have a hard ceiling on speaker points & I will generously allow new 1AR arguments.

Speed is the number of winnable arguments you can communicate to your judge. I will usually say “clear” twice before I stop flowing your speech. If you can't flow or comprehend your partner that's a problem. If you don't sign-post I am likely to give-up on flowing your speech.

I try to flow CX so please make reference. CX is about LISTENING and responding – let your opponent finish their answer/question, acknowledge it, and then move to the next point. Be polite if you have to interrupt.

Everyone should give two speeches. I’ll only flow the assigned person during speeches.

Framework --- I’ve voted on all kinds of different impact arguments. Debate has wide-ranging value to folks and I think you should be willing to defend why it’s important to you in any given situation. Defense can be very compelling: Neg teams should win an overarching theory of how their model absorbs/turns the 1ac’s offense with explanations of switch-side or TVA examples that interface well with the aff. The TVA should be a proof of concept, not a CP. Aff teams should win a counter-interp/alternative model of what debate looks like OR terminal offense to the neg’s model of debate. Above everything, you should think strategically and react instead of just reading some dusty, generic blocks.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain. jmsimsrox@gmail.com

UT '21 update (since I'm judging policy): I judge probably around a dozen policy rounds on the DFW local circuit a year (since about 2011), so I'm not a policy debate expert but I shouldn't be confused by your round. That means that I will probably understand the arguments you're making in a vacuum, but that you should probably err on the side of over-explaining how you think those arguments should interact with each other; don't just expect me to be operating off the exact same policy norms that you/the national circuit do. I am fairly willing to evaluate arguments however you tell me to. I have read a decent bit of identity, setcol, and cap lit. I am less good on pomo lit but I am not unwilling to vote on anything I can understand. Totally down for just a plan v counterplan/disad debate too.

Tl;dr I'm fine with really any argument you want to read as long as it links to and is weighed in relation to some evaluative mechanism. I am pretty convinced that T/theory should always be an issue of reasonability (I obviously think that some debates are better when there is a clear counter-interp that offense is linked back to); if you trust me to compare and weigh offense on substantive issues in the debate, I can't figure out why you wouldn't also trust me to make the same judgments on T/theory debates (unless you're just making frivolous/bad T/theory args). I enjoy any debate that you think you can execute well (yeah this applies to your K/counter-plan/non-T aff; I'll listen to it). I base speaker points on whether or not I think that you are making strategic choices that might lead to me voting for you (extending unnecessary args instead of prioritizing things that contribute to your ballot story, dropping critical arguments that either are necessary for your position or that majorly help your opponent, failing to weigh arguments in relation to each other/the standard would be some general examples of things that would cause you to lose speaker points if I am judging). Beyond those issues, I think that debate should function as a safe space for anyone involved; any effort to undermine the safety (or perceived safety) of others in the activity will upset me greatly and result in anything from a pretty severe loss of speaker points to losing the round depending on the severity of the harm done. So, be nice (or at least respectful) and do you!

Email is wwatson.debate@gmail.com

I hate paraphrasing and believe it is the cause of bad debate.

World schools peeps- speak with passion and give a clear delivery. Order/signposting is your friend.

No matter what event you are in I expect disclosure once you break a case... if you read disclosure theory I want your case on the wiki even if this is first time breaking

I vote on an offense defense paradigm for the most part- I am a past PF/CX debater from Colleyville Heritage. My first two years I did CX so I will most likely default to stock issues unless someone reads a framework. I enjoy weighing. The easiest way to get my ballot in any event is to pick one argument then weigh it against your opponent's arguments. If you pick one or two arguments to go for in final focus or the rebuttals in policy, I am likely to vote for you, especially if your opponent decides to go for everything.

Recent update- weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh.weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. Literally, start your rebuttal with "regardless of responses, our case outweighs their case because ______"

Also- please please please please please tell me the why. Explain why things happen.

Theory/topicality

I hate theory/topicality being read as a time-suck. I will default to reasonability so if you read T be sure to give me a reason not to. Unfair observations and burdens will most likely get you low speaks, especially if I feel that you are trying to win in a cheap way. Run these at your own risk...

Speaker Points

I will go on a scale between 27-30, with a 28 being average. High Speaks are given to people who keep track of time, speak well, show up early, and are relatively nice. I am cool with sarcasm when appropriate, just don't be rude. Being early to round will get you higher speaks. If I am on a panel with a parent and you have to adapt to them I will understand.

Event Specific

Policy Specific/LD: Flashing doesn't count as prep, I'm down for reasonable theory, and open CX is fine. If you give me a speech doc and then spread through it tell me where to mark the card and which ones to skip. Slow down on taglines and anything else you want me to flow...

PF Specific: I want the second speaking team to try to answer the first rebuttal. New in the 2 gets lower speaks instantly for both partners AND I won't vote on it. If you want high speaks be clear, weigh, and have the FF mirror the summary.

Remember this is a game and y'all want to do this. Act accordingly. BTW I will yell clear!!!

toby.whiz@gmail.com

Fundamentally I see debate as a game. I think it is a valuable and potentially transformative game that can have real world implications, but a game none the less that requires me to choose a winner. Under that umbrella here are some specifics.

1. Comparative analysis is critical for me. You are responsible for it. I will refrain from reading every piece of evidence and reconstructing the round, but I will read relevant cards and expect the highlighting to construct actual sentences. Your words and spin matters, but this does not make your evidence immune to criticism.

2. The affirmative needs to engage the resolution.

3. Theory debates need to be clear. Might require you to down shift some on those flows. Any new, exciting theory args might need to be explained a bit for me. Impact your theory args.

4. I am not well versed in your lit. Just assume I am not a "____________" scholar. You don't need to treat me like a dullard, but you need to be prepared to explain your arg minus jargon. See comparative analysis requirement above.

Side notes:

Not answering questions in CX is not a sound strategy. I will give leeway to teams facing non responsive debaters.

Debaters should mention their opponents arguments in their speeches. Contextualize your arguments to your opponent. I am not persuaded by those reading a final rebuttal document that "answers everything" while not mentioning the aff / neg.

Civility and professionalism are expected and will be reciprocated.

Speech events. I am looking for quality sources and logic in OO and Inf. I have been teaching speech for 18 years and will evaluate fundamentals as well.

I am Dyspolity@gmail.com on email chains.

NSDA update:

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

Who I am:

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

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

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

Likes:

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

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

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

Dislikes:

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

Overclaiming. Did I need to actually include that?

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

Circuit level speed.

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

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

One More Concern:

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

Policy Debate:

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

LD Debate:

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

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

PF Debate:

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

Congress:

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

Derek Ziegler

Updated September 2016  

Meta:

Debate should be entertaining and fun but also equitable for all teams to execute argument. I'm fairly open to most styles / lines of argument. I tend to reward smart technical choices over the "truth" of the debate itself - because of this, a majority of my RFD's deviate from what's below in a lot of ways, but assuming everyone's on top of their game, the stuff below tells you how I lean. 

Top Suggestions for Points / More Likely Wins:

-Control a narrative - explain stories in final rebuttels and use plenty of even if statements - explain why some narratives you've developed outweigh others (if we control the direction of the link, uniqueness matters less, etc.). 

-Speaker resolution of major themes > quick extension of analytics / ev. I often flow debates in "chunks" of major components and often read these wholistically. I reward intentioned rhetorical decisions to resolve issues more than I do the presence of evidence even when that evidence is more tehnically correct.

-I prefer verticle over horizontal spread - read fewer off in a 1NC (as in, 3-4 off is more useful than 8-10) and consolidate the block.

-I really like line-in-the-sand moments. Some of the highest speaks I've given happen when a block decides that a single impact turn is where the debate is going, or when a 1AR decides that they will win with one advantage and 3 minutes of link debate on a DA. I also have a tendency to reward the swing with points, even if it's a miss. 

-I'm a debate optimist - I like friendly quips - have a disagreement, have fun with that disagreement, attack ideas and not people and everything is great.

T:

Affs should advocate the topic - what it means for the aff to advocate the topic is up for debate. Limits are good. Contrived interpretations are bad. Competing interps makes a ton of sense. Contextual ev increasingly matters more for me.

The K:

No real aversions here - method / framework should be clearly identified by both sides, 'tricks' should be robust, I should understand the argument. I default to the aff getting to weigh their plan but having to justify methodological assumptions of the 1AC. Affs don't read disads to alternatives enough; negatives don't explain alternatives enough. 

You won't like your speaker points if the thesis of the link debate is "they didn't use our starting point."  You will like your speaker points if the link debate is thorough, implicates the efficacy of both the plan and the discursive strategy of the 1AC, and the alternative provides a meaningful departure from that stuff.

Counterplans:

Most CP's aren't cheating. Almost every CP that results in the aff or modifies process is not competitive. Negs need to win uniqueness to net benefits - "links less" = aff on presumption 9 out of 10 times. Affs should be reading more add-ons in the 2AC as disads to the CP; negatives should be doing more comparison work between potential solvency deficit vs risk of the net benefit. 

Disads:

You should read them (plural). Probability controls impact calculus for me, though this calculus changes if you're convingingly ahead on why the disad turns or takes out the case. 

Case Debates:

Negs don't go for solvency arguments enough - if you want to control the try or die narrative, convince me that the aff does little.  

It's really hard to get below a 29.5 from me if more than half of the block is case debate. I'm much more interested in hearing robust case turns over impact defense or whatever K is popular at that moment. I really like 1AR's that jettison unnecessary arguments / consolidate down to only the most relevant case impacts to open up more time to beat a disad. 

Condo:

I really only vote on this if neg team has dropped it / barely remembered it was said. Beyond concession, I mostly vote on theory if a debate was made impossible and not just harder, and my threshold for impossible is pretty high. General rule of thumb: affs win condo debates when they're about potential abuse, negs win condo debates when they're about in-round abuse. 

Theory:

New rebuttel arguments are almost universally allowed to answer theory arguments that took less than 5 seconds to say.

If you plan on going for theory as a reason a team loses a debate, you should have a reason why they should lose the debate and not just reasons for why what they did kinda sucked.

General Things:

Prep stops when the flash drive leaves the computer / when speech doc has been emailed. Ethics challenges require verifiable proof. More than likely, at any given moment, I desire additional caffeine - do with this information as you will.