Jump to content
Tomak

Judge Paradigms

Recommended Posts

Ill be happy to judge a round on any topic or debate on poverty or energy

 

BACKGROUND

i'm a high school varsity policy debater with reasonable knowledge about this years and last years topic. I've got to state champs before and got the quarters at USC with almost no coaching and i think that i am a reasonable person and would be a good judge.

 

PARADIGM

 

DA:if your going to run a disad then it would be worth your time to explain how the DA links specifically links to the aff and not just " social services lead to X, they make a social service, they link". it would be even better to run a case specific DA but generics are fine with me. another thing i would like you to do is to explain in detail how the DA turns or outweighs the case

 

CP: i personally really like CPs. im fine with PICs, consult CPs, advantage CP and the like as long as its not "do plan minus 1 penny" or a consult Mongolia CP. if your going for a CP, just explain how to CP solves better or is a better option with the net benefit. for perms, simply saying perm: do both isn't enough. include some analysis on why doing both would solve or be net beneficial.

 

K: i would have to say that Ks are my favorite type of argument. the biggest problem I have with a K is the alternative. i need a bit of analysis on what the alt exactly does. if the alt is just to reject the aff, then explain how rejecting the aff will actually do something or cause a change in the system.

 

T: i will usually look to T first in the debate unless there is a reason not to. to me, standards are the most important part of T. really explain why the aff is so bad that i need to vote them down because of it. having said that, i will be reluctant to vote neg on T if the aff is reasonably within the topic. Extra T is also good with me.

 

Theory: I will vote on almost any theory argument as long as there is enough analysis on why the other team was unfair to the point that i have to vote against them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll judge any poverty round.

 

Paradigm: Tab/Games

 

Tab- I'll vote on anything

Games - If you say why to vote on it, I'll blow up the earth, make space colonies, etc, as long as you convince me why it's better than the other options.

 

Simply:

Convince me you're right and they're wrong. Use your cards - and don't shadow extend, when you say extend "Author 2010" - explain what the warrant is, and then I'll be able to figure out how it applies.

Explain why I should vote on any arg, and I will. Also, don't drop stuff. And if someone does drop something, blow it up and prove why that arg is so important that the other side is past the point of no return.

 

DAs: Run them. Make sure they link - try to make them plan specific, but of course that's not always possible. Don't really know what to say here.

 

T - I will vote on T, if it's dropped, the round's pretty much over, so don't drop it. RVIs are silly, but if you convince me that an RVI is needed, I'll vote.

 

Case -

 

Aff:Read it? Haha, but extend case - use your case. Explain why you outweigh Neg's impacts, explain why risk of Neg impact won't happen while if you're plan isn't passed, your impacts will happen. Too many affs only answer Neg and leave their case dropped the whole round...don't.

 

Neg: Attack it. Case turns are good, impact turns are good, solvency is good. Anything on case is good.

 

Theory - I will read theory and accept it, but it has to be real abuse - let the Neg have one condo CP and a condo K, if they have 6, okay, I'll buy condo bad. Go ahead and read theory - but don't expect to win around purely with it unless: a - it's dropped, or b - it's legit abuse.

 

F/W - Go ahead, run it. It's not my favorite argument, but it can be strategic.

 

K - Here we go. I like Ks. The problem with Ks is that you need to explain the K - I'll know what you're talking about, but I want you to explain what the Aff is doing, why that's bad, and how your alt either solves case, or says a reason why case shouldn't be solved.

 

On Aff: answer them?

 

Independent Voters- Do not say "retard" - you will lose the ballot. Just don't put random ass voters in the middle of a paragraph, and you'll be fine. Go ahead and put a voter in, but just don't say "they did x - that's an independent voter" ...if you must, explain why is that bad, why should that be voted on regardless of who wins or loses everything else in the round?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can judge whatever, here's my paradigm

 

Mostly Tab

 

T- If you must, I hate it. but I'll vote on it if you say to. ( I treat this like a DA so I expect evidence why your impacts happen, and why the other team is abusive why thats bad etc.)

 

DA- run it if you like, but I need to have impact calc or don't expect me to vote on it.

 

CP- run it but not w/o a netbenefit, otherwise tell me why you don't need one.

 

K- Run it, I love good K debate, stay true to the K you run, if you have a performative contradiction, it will be an uphill battle.

 

---Case---

Aff- I am up for whatever, I'm a K debater so I like kritikal advantages and solvency in round etc. I'll vote on what you tell me to

(make sure you weigh case and extend it, I won't do that for you)

 

also, I WILL

-vote on dropped args

-vote on the winning side of fw.

-if you have no offense at the end of the round, you don't have my ballot

-don't ask dumb questions in cross-x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can judge just about anything.

 

I'm a high school debater, who has good knowledge of both this year and last year's and I am doing work on deployment, admittedly lacking on the judging experience.

 

I'm tabs, run what you want, tell me what to vote for, and all that good stuff.

 

Specifics

T: I would like in-round abuse, I really would but sometimes that just isn't possible so you have to give me a good explanation of why I should care that the aff could abuse you maybe possibly in the future.

Theory: Generally fine by me, run it as a time suck, run it to go for it, I don't care. As with T, I'd like actual abuse though not absolutely necessary.

DA: Give me a good story, explain how it links and how the impact affects the aff. I don't care if the DA is a turn on case if you don't tell me what that actually does in the world of fiat. Impact calc is obviously a must.

CP: Please be competitive, though I won't call you on it if the aff doesn't(which would be kind of sad). They can be T, they can be PICs, they can be consult for all I care just make sure you can win the theory debate if the aff brings it up.

K: They are really fun. Know your author, and know what the hell you're talking about. Wax poetic in the 2nr(preferably a bit sooner) and tell me why this matters in the world of debate. If you're alt isn't technically a policy option, explain to me how I should evaluate that in the terms of the debate round. I will be honest, I need to read more critical literature but I should have some idea of what you're talking about without you explaining it and if I have no idea by the time the 2ar is over, that kind of sucks for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The list of judges has been updated once again. Thanks to everyone who has volunteered to judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2010-11 Policy Debate Paradigm:

 

 

As a bit of background information, I started high school debate in 1997 in policy, switched to LD in 2000, and debated both in my state circuit (Idaho) and on the national circuit. I also debated 4 years in parliamentary debate in college. I have judged high school tournaments since 2002, and currently coach as a volunteer for a local high school in Missoula, MT as a part of my pro bono hours, primarily for LD, but I love watching a good policy round. Needless to say, debate and I have a very long history together.

Generally speaking, I would consider myself a policymaker/tabula rosa judge, though I lean more on the policymaker side.

 

Flow: To me, the flow is everything, and is essentially the roadmap of the debate. If you are not clear for me on the flow, then it is very hard for me to listen to (or read) your arguments because I’ll get distracted as to where it should go on the flow. I’m very much an old-school structural flow debater. I expect all of your points to lettered/numbered because what you say in the tagline during the round may not be verbatim as what I write on my flow due to space constraints, so consistency is key. Taglines/subpoints are more important to my flowing structure than the author of a card. I’ll write down the author/date if I think that it’s important, but I’m more focused on the argument on the flow, and not the author. Also, I flow all contentions/observations and all off-case arguments on separate pieces of paper, so roadmaps are absolutely essential prior to a speech (except, of course, the 1AC).

 

T: In general, I hate topicality debate because in the end, whether or not a case is topical is completely subjective to the judge. Since one of the voters is generally “jurisdiction,” the negative essentially gives the judge the power to intervene by determining for herself whether the case is or is not topical. Plus, I need to see some clear abuse by the Affirmative through the topicality answers. In essence, you’re accusing the Affirmative of breaking the most fundamental rule of debate, that the case is topical, so you’d better have some clear evidence on how/why the Affirmative has broken the rules. I think it should go without saying that I will vote on RVIs, so if you’re hesitant as to whether the Affirmative’s case is not topical, don’t run it.

 

Kritiks: I’m a fan of kritiks because I’m an LD debater at heart. The different philosophies and rhetorical issues that are raised at the high school/collegiate levels are incredibly interesting to me and I think they allow students to really push the envelope of policy debate outside the normal fiat construct. However, I also think that kritiks are becoming more of a strategic ploy by negatives to suck an affirmative’s time, rather than really addressing the core problems proposed by the affirmative. Therefore, a strong link to me is crucial to avoid abuse by the NEG and to really pinpoint the issues and implications made by the AFF. I do not generally believe that an alternative is needed; sometimes my actions on the ballot can be more effective than an illusory counterplan. Alternatives help me weighing the benefits/disadvantages of case at the end of the round.

 

Counterplans: Being an LDer, I’ve always liked having alternatives between the affirmative and the negative, though I agree that they are not always necessary. The counterplan, however, must be (1) net beneficial AND (2) mutually exclusive for me to vote on it.

 

Disadvantages: In all of the DAs, the link is the most important part of the structure. If you don’t explain the link (especially in a generic disadvantage like spending or politics), or if the link does not hold under scrutiny, then it’s not going to weigh heavily in my decisions at the end.

 

Rebuttals: The 2AR and the 2NR especially must provide me with clear voters as to who won the debate, why, and provide me with some sort of impact/weighing mechanism. If I don’t have clear voters, then both sides essentially give me free reign to vote for whatever I want for however I want. Therefore, be absolutely clear in the rebuttals for you to win.

 

Other: If anyone has any specific questions before a round starts, I am more than happy to answer. However, if you ask me a specific question, I answer it, and then you ignore my response, I will not be pleased.

 

If requested, I will send you a PDF copy of my flows after the round and after I post the ballot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a tab judge. I will evaluate what the debaters give me and try to minimize judge intervention, but if the two sides don't really clash, I find that intervention is inevitable. In that case, don't get angry if I don't evaluate it how you would like, because if I'm in that situation, it's 100% the debaters' faults. Having said that, the list below are how I view the arguments.

 

T--As far as topicality goes, I belleive that it is strongly overused and has no place as a 'core' neg argument. I have a very high threshhold for T, but if you can prove abuse or it is clearly not topical I will vote. Reasonability strikes me as the better of the two options. I hate voting down a team because they answered T poorly, but I will if I have to.

 

Procedurals--This includes spec arguments and thos other misc. procedural type arguments. Seriously, you probably won't win on it. I think that a procedural is, most of the time, only a voting issue if you can prove some kind of IN ROUND abuse. I don't mean, wah! boo hoo! we cant run our favorite strat. I mean real abuse. Absent that you are left in a very weak position.

 

Theory--I tend to lean neg on CP/K status-type theory (dispo, condo, etc). If affirmative wins that flow, I will give it to them. Dispositionality strikes me as functionaly the same as condo. As far as potential abuse goes, I find it a very weak position. The way I see it, if they had actually harmed you then you wouldn't be running POTENTIAL abuse.

 

DA's--All is good here. I have no bias for or against them. I'll buy it if you sell it to me.

 

Politics--I understand their importance in the meta-game of debate, but I don't especially like them. Not that I'm instantly disposed against them (the aff still needs to win flow), but I will tend aff here.

 

CP's--I don't think that a CP has to solve case, just that it has to be net beneficial. Severance perms are a hard argument to win on though. I don't like actor or consult CP's, but again I stress that I will only vote against them if the Aff wins that I should. Once again, if you make an argument I'll listen. I have nothing in particular to add to this section.

 

Kritiks--I'm pretty knowledgeable about these, but don't assume that I will instantly and totally know what you're talking about. I'll vote on anything you bring up, no matter how wacky it is, as long as you win the flow. Make sure that you really explain your arguments though. Floating PIK's/PIC's are going to have a hard time winning the round. I will almost always vote Aff on that theory flow. As far as perms go, if the aff doesn't include one of them in the 2AC, I find the K flow EXTREMELY hard to win for the aff.

 

Framework--I will go either way on this. If you want to run it, then win the flow and I'll evaluate with your framework no matter what it is. Keep in mind though that the wackier the framework you present the easier it is for the other team to take the flow.

 

Crazy Stuff--Personally, I love to be involved with debates that use this stuff. Consult Ashtar and the like are always fun, but I love to see new stuff. Timecube is not cool though, just saying. Im all about warrants and I doubt you can give me any here to vote on. Assuming you could though, and you won the flow, I guess I'd have to vote for you. Honestly, it becomes increasingly difficult to win a vote the crazier you get, but it is never impossible. Every argument is winnable in my book, so long as you take the flow. If you want to run something crazy, I am probably one of the better judges to do it with.

 

Other--

 

Evidence vs. Analytics--Honestly, warrants are what matter to me. I follow the old-time approach that an argument is nothing without good warrants (sorry Mead 98). This means that I will easily vote for a good analytical against an ok or bad card. Evidence is only there to make a point; it does not automatically outweigh an analytical.

 

Offence/Defense Paradigm--I default here if I'm not told how to evaluate the role of offense and defense in the round, so if you don't like O/D paradigm, make it part of the 1AC/1NC.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My judge paradigm is Games Player.

I love all strategic moves, but nothing just to be sneaky.

 

THEORY:

I'll vote on Theory, but give me a reason to. I don't find "Aff choice", "Competitive Equity", and stuff like that to be very good theory arguments. There's a difference between debating theoretically and whining theoretically. Don't just throw out voters for no reason, but I feel very comfortable voting on Theory if you give a good argument to it and actually go for it.

 

TOPICALITY:

I find Topicality annoying. Obviously it's a voter, but "Potential Abuse" is rarely, if ever, a voter. It's a necessary argument, but if you have more than 2 Topicalities coming out of the 1NC I will be VERY annoyed with you. I err on the side of reasonability usually. Granted, if the aff spikes out of links and stuff like that, go for T. Basically, just try to make a real debate with clash.

 

KRITIKS:

I love the K. Kritik someone's Kritik on your Kritikal Aff. Go for it! K is awesome. That being said, if you try to run it and you don't know what you're doing, this is unacceptable. Give me a reason to believe that the Alt solves, and if you have an ethical impact, for the love of god, PLEASE run a framework argument. Seriously, don't be lazy. I can't evaluate an ethical impact on a Utilitarian Impact Cal framework. But yeah, basically, just know what you're doing with the Kritik. And please EXPLAIN YOUR LINKS AND THESIS. Generic stuff isn't so convincing, and it doesn't convince ME that you know what you're talking about.

 

COUNTERPLANS:

Don't throw out a bunch of CP's in one round, try not to run a Consult Counterplan. I'll accept it as an argument if you win on it, but I still hate Consult CP's quite a lot. Other than that, just make sure you have Mutual Exclusivity and a Net Benefit, obviously. Make sure the CP has Solvency, PLEASE.

 

DISADS:

Anything goes, really. Don't run a bunch of Disads that have the same Internal Links/Impacts though. EXAMPLE: Don't run Dream Act and SKFTA together. Don't run 2 different relations DA's together, etc. I'm comfortable with Kritik-ing DA's or saying that you solve for the root cause, and all that, just give me a reason to actually believe it.

 

ON CASE:

If you can actually make really good on-case arguments, I'll be impressed and enjoy it. Analytical shit is awesome. However, if your arguments are obviously terrible, relatively unwarranted and don't have much place in the debate other than a Time-Skew, I'll kind of ignore it.

 

 

SO BASICALLY, BE STRATEGIC!

Have fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a tabs judge and will listen to anything. Note that listen does not mean like. I also hate judge intervention.

 

T-I really like topicality, i'll listen to just about any t arguments but i would prefer if the neg didnt read them for the sole purpose of them being a time suck. I would also like good analysis on the reasonability vs competing interps debate because the seems to be where the debate comes down to and i would rather not have to intervene. T is an RVI about .000000001% of the time.

 

Spec-I will vote on it if i have to, but i will look really really hard for a place where the neg loses.

 

Theory-I love theory. There needs to be good analysis, there is nothing more annoying then when the aff reads their shell, and the neg reads their shell and there is no interaction between the two. It makes me intervene as the judge and odds are i will vote for whatever team is on the defensive.

 

Da-Love them. Generic links are lame. Aff should be giving a good impact calculus on the impact preferably by the 1AR

 

CP-Cool with them. I need good analysis coming out of the 2NR as to why the cp is so much better then the aff. The 2AC should be hammering offensive reasons why the CP sucks. OFFENSE OFFENSE OFFENSE

 

K-I really enjoy a *good* K debate. This means the negative should be giving a clear story what the k does and how it interacts with the affirmative. The neg should be giving me explanation as to what the role of the ballot is. I'm very sympathetic to the affirmative with the perm so the neg should be doing alot of work that.

 

F/W-I will default to whatever framing the 1AC gives, if none is present i will default to policy maker.

 

Performance-Cool with them, just tell me what the Role of the Ballot is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll get in on this. i dont have time to actually debate, but judging i can do.

 

I'm a highschool debater, this is my second year. I went to State my first year (i was the only freshman)

I know a great deal about this and last years topic, but i will judge any topic you throw at me.

 

I am not too picky, but a few things to keep in mind with me:

 

Topicalities: i consider them a huge voting issue, but only if theyre run correctly. Dont give me some bullshit T, or i will disregard it. Dont waste half your speech on T, is my main feeling with it.

Counterplans: Again, run them well. i usually wont vote on them, though.

K: We do not do K's here. Theyre a ridiculous argument and a waste of time. i will ignore any K arguments ran.

Da's: freaking love them. If you dont run a DA, you auto lose in my book

 

Dont just tell me an argument, give me a reason to vote on it, or it will fall short. Otherwise, im pretty lax.

  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 years college debate, prefer policy but can go both ways, if you win the argument you win but I don't like the trolling that goes on nowadays, virtual-debates are supposed to help people who don't have the resources for actual rounds- reading absolutely stupid stuff just to be "cool" is not persuasive and doesn't help people.

 

I'd still prefer a politics and case throwdown but K debate is fine with me, I've done both sides of it..

 

T- it's a voter, never an RVI, the rest of it is up for debate, not a fan of K's of T, etc but will vote on them if done well

 

CP's- doesn't matter, have a net benefit, solvency advocate, text. Don't think word pics make sense against policy affs, theory issues are below. No judge kick

 

DA- they are fine with me, a DA + Case 2NR or even block is pretty awesome, turns case args are always good.

 

K's- not a lot of knowledge in them, it's growing though- I feel that impact turning is the way to go vs. the K if it makes sense, not a fan of generic language K's unless actions in round are egregious, links of omission are bad, alts shouldn't be shifty but I don't fault a neg team if the aff drops the ball on the floating PIK, framework that excludes either side is dumb, but barring the aff/neg dropping the ball, default is aff gets to weigh case, neg gets to K the aff. Aff can sever reps/other parts

 

K affs/"Performance"- i'm fine with it, If you defend USFG action but do K stuff, w/e i'm fine with you

 

Framework is a viable option, even with the aff I run now, I don't agree with or even support the new method of never reading Framework in a 1NC ever again because everyone's angry about. Framework = T, means that it's conditional, while I err aff on a lot of theory, takes a very inept neg for me to vote on condo/performative contradictions if the link is a K + Framework/T, aff can make the Framework = Uncondo arg but i'm not convinced.

 

Forcing shared experiences are bad

explain to me what you actually do and how to evaluate it

aff needs an advocacy statement, you defend all of your advocacy statement after giving it

aff doesn't get perm if not defending USFG action, neg has to make the argument though

don't make rounds angry (goes for aff and neg) clash rounds suck if everyone's a dick, also be respectful to people.

While I will vote for framework, new options/advocacies are always a good option.

 

theory- nearly anything's a reason to reject the team- only things that I lean 100% on one way or the other are, Neg gets fiat, multiple perms is not a reason to reject the aff. I think condo could be bad, lean neg if 1 condo option, neutral if 2, lean aff if the 2 contradict or more than 2 options.

 

 

I have a real philosophy somewhere but this is a short version. PM me if you want a judge.

Edited by Firewater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will judge if anyone requests me to

 

Affs-Just make sure you have good evidence. You have infinite prep, you need to have good, clear link stories and inherent advantages.

 

DAs-Awesome. Just make sure the link stories are good.

 

CP-These better be competitive. As far as I'm concerned, perms are just a test of competition, but I'll listen to whatever you have to say as well.

 

Theory & T-I'll vote on it if you do enough work on it. I won't vote on theory or t that takes up 30sec of a 2R, but I'll vote on it if it takes a good amount of time (even if it's not the entire rebuttal). Have a good abuse scenario.

 

K-I hate these. I'll vote on them, but I dislike hearing them.

 

 

I'll go more in depth if necessary.

 

If you want to have a straight-up round, just ask me to judge.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Default to kritikal if no framework is offerred; otherwise, I'll use whatever framework is argued better (I'll happily shift my paradigm to policymaker if the argument is well constructed and not properly adressed). I'm fine with pretty much any argument, though as a debater I do tend to go for the K much more than standard policy args. I have a comparatively high threshold on theory -- you should definitely isolate specific instances of in-round abuse. I'll default to reasonability on T, though as with framework, I can be convinced to shift my paradigm (to competing interps). Finally, I love crazy impact turns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MY PERIDGM ISS WHOEVEHR RUNS ANHRO OR MAAHALHUS WINZ! HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA
 

 

SIIIIIIIIICKKKKK TROOOOOOOLLLLL

 

***TETRIS***

 

***MALTHUS4LYFE****

********:DDDDDD**********

***********************************
 

  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My paradigm is that I will vote for whoever runs anthropocentrism or a Malthus disadvantage. I am amused by this.

 

The above was a funny, somewhat satirical joke.

 

I enjoy playing the video game Tetris.

 

I am a fan of Thomas Malthus. He is a good guy and I anticipate that I will respect him for the rest of my life.

 

I'm very happy at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would like to get in a round or two for judging.

 

Background: im a hs debater with knowledge on this year and last years topic. i am quallified to CFL in policy this year and went to nfl finals in extemp last year. 

 

Aff: i pref policy but i will do with k affs

 

Da: i want this to have a link, if it doesnt, i wont vote on it. i have permed a da myself and so i am accepting of it but only if it applies

 

Cp: i dont really care for these, however, if they apply, ill vote. they must solve the entire case in order for me to consider it.

 

T: i default to competing interps but can swing to reason. You drop your stds, you basically just dropped t so dont do it

 

K: i enjoy these. they need to have a pretty solid link and a nice alt base. if the alt is bad, i wont write down neg. 

 

Theory: i dont mind these but i also dont hate them. a good theory arg should be ran but nothing less. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to judge a round!

 

I'm a high school debater, and I am familiar with the oceans/surveillance/china topics. 

I consider myself tabs, and enjoy good framework in a round.

 

T:

Topicality is a voter. Period. I will judge any amounts of t's as long as the aff answers. Don't use it as the premise for your Neg strat.

K:

I used to be opposed to kritiks, but I really enjoy them now. AS LONG AS you run it properly, I have no problem voting on a K.

CP:

I am fine with PIC's as well as CP's. The only thing that irritates me is when Affs simply answer with perm do both, without evidence or analytics. Or when a negative doesn't give me net benefits. Why should I vote on the CP? Give me reasons why and I will vote on it. Don't run a bunch in one round.

DA: I love disads. Just make sure you have good internal links. And I will decide.

Theory:

Only run theory args if YOU ARE CONFIDENT in what you are arguing. Don't just say it to say it. I vote on these if they are effective.

 

I loathe judges that debate for debaters. I will only judge what you put in front of me.

Edited by stephaniRhodes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Decided to write a new paradigm...

 

Greetings! My name is David, I go to OPRF in Illinois. About half the time, I'm a 1A/2N, and the other half I am 2A/2N. 

 

TLDR - Do what you like, I love a good FW debate, explanation outweighs evidence, extra speaker points for a great case debate, tech determines truth

 

Kritiks

Naturally, this is the first place most people go when they look at paradigms. I am not too well read on most K lit. I choose to spend my time cutting PTX updates rather than obscure postmodernism. This, however, does not mean I dislike the K. I think a K debate can be educational, and provides good insight on how the world works from a different perspective. I also think it gives people room to express their beliefs within what I consider to be an accepting space (for the most part). I will not connect the dots for you. I need link contextualization, impact debate, and alt debate. I do not think Ks must have an alt. I think that kicking the alt in the block or the 2NR can be very strategic for the neg. I'm of the mindset that 4 minute overviews can be easily integrated into the line by line. I hate having to get a new sheet for an overview, especially when I don't feel the overview needs to be there at all. Short overviews are great, but beyond a few lines, I'd rather just hear it on the line by line. When I read Ks, I read Security and Neolib. With a few exceptions, these are the only things that I actively read and cut evidence about when it comes to critical literature. Security, when done correctly, is my favorite argument in a debate round. I find it to be true, but I will gladly listen to any aff that refutes that claim, because there are certainly holes in that K. As the TLDR said, I don't care what you do as long as you do it well. 

 

DAs

PTX is great. Federalism is great. Relations are great when the topic is right. I find that internal link explanation is a dying art in policy debate. Just as you would the case, you need to win the moving parts (U/q, Link, I/L, Impact) to win a DA in front of me. You shouldn't skirt one of these questions to focus on another if the aff has spread their responses evenly. It pains me to see aff blocks organized poorly. You should be able to read uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact takeouts at the top, then throw whatever else below that. Attacking each level puts the neg in a lot harder position than reading 7 thumpers and an impact takeout. I think that evidence indicts can get aff teams a long way here as well. DA evidence isn't ever really that great. Call that out. Forcing the block to read more evidence is useful because it doesn't provide a ton of room for new args for the 1AR to answer, and when it does, they're minimal and cross applications can prove to be good enough in that circumstance. 

 

CPs

Great. Explain it. Explain the net benefit. No problems, or anything tricky here. I will judge kick the CP by default. However, I can be swayed on this issue. 

 

Case

Do it. Negs need to engage the case more. I am the type of judge to vote on presumption based off of a really specific and well explained solvency takeout, if the 2NR goes for a presumption claim on that flow. Impact turns are also amazing, I think that there are tons of underutilized tactics for neg offense on the case. For affs, I think that your case can get you a long way in impact calc debates. Use the impacts of the aff to refute DAs and Ks. It is an underused tool that makes you look really good when you know how arguments interact on the flow. 

 

Theory

I hate theory debates with a burning passion. I do hold some pre-determined views on theory that can be shifted, but know this: condo is good for up to 3 condo advocacies, 50 state fiat might be bad but it might not be, consult CPs are really bad when they don't have a case specific advocate, international fiat is kinda silly, negs get fiat (I will dock speaker points if you go for no neg fiat, although I'll vote for you), PICs are good but Word PICs are bad, severance and intrisicness are only good if someone tells me they are, otherwise I don't care

 

Misc.

Extra speaker points for pursuasive rebuttals, smart cross applications, and anything that would make me go "wow, I didn't even think of that". Make jokes, have fun. Not being so serious made debate a less tiresome and more enjoyable activity, and it will make you friends as well. Calm down, have a laugh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...