Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The Spoon

[DEAD] [M] Round 333: [MILITARY] TheSecretSquirrel (aff) vs. The Spoon (neg)

Recommended Posts

Post 1AC whenever.

Judges will come as round is going.



I'll judge. Paradigm below.






This is my default:


Affirmative’s plan v. Squo/CP/K alt


If there is anything beyond this, run framework. I will be persuaded by a different frame if you win the flow.



1. generally a voter.

2. There are some stupid ones this year, and there will be some clearly topical affirmatives. Don’t expect me to vote on “withdrawal from Afghanistan is untopical because reduce =/= withdraw.” There are too many ways this is stupid.

3. I’d buy reasonability for this and a lot of other clearly topical plans.

4. I default to competing interps, but will be persuaded by reasonability.



1. Repko’s thoughts on the K:

2. I like smart Ks with smart stories. There are some K's that make no sense and are just stupid. This doesn't mean I won't vote on them, it just means that I need a lot more explanation of everything.

3. I dont like the traditional K very much: "Generic Link, Impact is a case turn, and alt is to vote neg." This doesnt mean i wont vote on it, it just means i want it to be better. Give me a case specific(ish) link, with a good impact that is not just a turn, and an alt that actually solves the issue, not just makes a statement about the issue.

4. “Alt solves the case” is always a good argument to make.

5. I find myself viewing K debates like disad counterplan debate too often.

6. I find Perms and Link Turns particularly persuasive for K's on this topic.



Disads: a few thoughts

1. I like disads. Just thought I’d say that.

2. Affirmatives should try to make good analytics on disads, because they often have stupid stories.

3. i like case specififc links.

4. Give impact calc if you want to win. If only one team is giving impact calc, they have won a 100% risk on the impact level, and the debate becomes a lot easier for them as long as they are not behind on the Uniqueness/Link/I-L debates.

5. I like politics. Not much to say here.

6. I think that, on most disads, the debate comes down to the team with the better arguments and cards on the “lower debate” (as Scott Harris calls U/L/I-L parts of the disad) and the team doing the better impact calc and defense in the impact debate, or the “upper debate.” Those two items make up the way I evaluate disad case debates.



1. I like Tim Mahoney’s paradigm on theory: “ “Voting issue – fairness and education” usually gets flowed as VI F@E and I presume that means it’s a voting issue if they go for whatever argument you have identified as a VI. If you expect it to be a voting issue if they don’t go for it then you need to give some type of warrant as to why the debate has been skewed by them merely making the argument.” I would add that I need this warrant to be articulated in the original shell.

2. T > theory

3. O/D is irrelevant in theory debates. If you have a good defense argument, I’ll give it to you.

4. I think that including theory in framework is the only way to move from these biases.




1. I don’t care if it solves case.

2. Perm’s are good arguments on many CP’s. They are tests of competition unless a net benefit is articulated before the 2ar, preferable the 2ac.

3. CP theory is becoming more and more legit

4. I think the neg should be allowed 1 conditional CP, Beyond that, I think that I start leaning towards the aff on condo theory if a good warrant for voters is given (see above).

5. If there is a CP or K in the 2nr I don’t give the neg the squo



1. affirmative: Be strategic – kick advantages you’re losing. If you’re winning Uniqueness and a link turn on a disad, and they have some damaging case args, kick case. Just make sure you have offense – in the long run, offense is the only purpose of having a case.

2. It only takes a few analytics to destroy a bunch of bad arguments." (that guy from fullerton that wrote a debate bible.) Make analytics, make turns, give analysis.

3. Case turns are pretty legit

4. CP/case turns makes a good strategy.




Think of my paradigm as a combination of the following two:


Large thoughts:


1. Debate is a communication activity. Good debaters recognize that' date=' time pressures and all, they can afford to explain and be funny. They identify communication failures and correct them.


2. I will reward aggressive strategies of any genre. It is always better to win on something crazy than it is to lose on something respectable. Put another way: Do not introduce a strategy in the constructives on which you are unwilling to give a final rebuttal.


3. By default, I will determine based on arguments in the round whether or not the topical plan presented by the affirmative is preferable to the status quo or a competitive option. Don’t be afraid to change this decision structure, but change it explicitly. Provide me a rubric with which to evaluate the debate. If the other team accedes to it or fails to prove it less desirable, I’ll use it.


4. I am perfectly comfortable passing judgment. If an argument does not rise to a minimum threshold of sense and explanation, I will disregard it. If I do not understand what a piece of evidence says by the end of the debate, I will not read it. Presumably the “tabula rasa” judge is by now only a strawperson, and I do not claim to be one.


[b']Small thoughts:[/b]

(Anything here can be changed by debating, except that topicality is a voting issue.)


1. Any aff. demonstrated not to defend a topical plan loses, as much at the end of the year as the beginning. “Debate-ability” alone does not make a plan topical, absent reasonable definitional support. If the aff. interpretation is good, a slightly better neg. interpretation may not be enough.


2. Presumption is toward less change from the status quo.


3. Phrases like “side constraint,” “decision rule,” “no value to life,” etc. are heavily value-laden, and, if any sensible explanation is present, you cannot afford to drop them.


4. Theory arguments inform how I resolve the debate but most likely do not resolve it alone. A situation in which I would reject the team is difficult to conceive (unless the argument I am rejecting is unconditional or some "voting issue" explanation is dropped). In the case of conditionality, this may mean making the CP unconditional.


5. Conditionality seems more sensible than not, at least to the extent of one CP. Many neg. teams, however, have gotten sloppy in their defense of it. If a conditional CP’s presence in the 2NR means that I cannot vote negative for the status quo, that must be made clear. In other words, I will assume I can “kick” a conditional CP after the debate. Dispositionality, to the extent I understand it, is silly and unimpressive.


6. Other CP theory: Attacking the competition of consultation, delay, and other wholly plan-inclusive CPs is likely more productive than attacking their legitimacy. Alternate actor fiat strikes me as a bizarre response to the claim that the USFG should act, although aff. teams rarely articulate these concerns adequately. "Topical CPs are a reason to vote aff" is a better argument than "PICs bad"; neither is great. If the best policy at the end of the round includes the plan, the aff. wins.


7. Theory generally: My personal bias, to the extent it’s relevant, is toward views that are logically derived from debate "first principles" or that facilitate good decision-making.


8. Kritiks can be highly strategic, if argument and explanation are provided in place of jargon. If my default decisionmaking framework doesn’t work for these, please change it explicitly. A powerful alternative often makes a powerful permutation.


9. If you find some aspect of their plan unclear, please ask about it in the cross-ex. If they find some aspect of your plan unclear, please answer.


10. Concessions must be impacted. Any argument that does not directly or eventually answer the question “For whom am I to sign the ballot, and why?” is irrelevant, conceded or not.


11. Nit-pickiness: If you do not spend time before and during the debate to craft effective strategies for cross-ex, I am not a good judge for you. Title the first off-case argument in the 1NC. I am "you"; the other team is "they."





- I am less neg biased than I used to be. I am still very very good for the neg.

- negs win the highest percentage of rounds in front of me when the 2nr defends a counterplan with specific solvency evidence and a disad.

- I try to protect the 2nr as much as possible. dropped arguments in the 1ar are trouble. especially arguments why the disad turns the case

- dropped arguments are true arguments' date=' but just because an argument is dropped/true does not automatically mean it is absolute. for instance, if the neg dropped "no threshhold" that does not mean the risk of the disad is zero, only that there is no threshhold. [/font']

-just because an argument is not explicitly answered in the “they say X but” sense, does not automatically mean it is dropped. Many times a team says a bunch of things which functionally respond to/interact with what you said even if they did not say “off your 2nd argument”. This does not give you free reign to drop things and I will still try to protect teams (especially the 2nr) from totally new cross applications.

- I try to be very technical as a judge. things like "truth" and "connections" matter less for me than for other judges.

- that being said, there is a range on incredibly stupid arguments which are not impossible, but definitely tougher in front of me. Examples include most specification arguments, some k's, death good, etc. there was a time when i was the best judge in the world for every stupid theory cheap shot and bad T arg....that time has passed. technical debate skills are still very very important...but having high quality materials and good strategies is important too.

- evidence quality and evidence comparison are both important. I will not totally disregard sizable differences in ev quality just based on ev comparison; however, if one side has better ev but the other side has better ev comparison, I will usually value the in round ev comparison a little higher than the ev quality.

- I am very heavily in the offense/defense camp. defensive arguments can significantly reduce risk, but are rarely absolute. this is true both for theory and substantive arguments.

-I do not think of uniqueness/link etc in terms of an “absolute” direction, I think of it in terms of “risk of directions”. For instance, if the aff is net ahead on the link, they control the “net” direction of the link, but there is still probably a “risk” of a link, there is just a “larger risk” of a link turn. Viewing this in absolute terms doesn’t make sense to me. I think it is incredibly silly actually. I could give a long explanation for why I believe this way of thinking is easily demonstrated as flawed.

- I kind of hack out for try or die. its the one offsetting factor in my general neg hack status. beating try or die requires either a) a good time frame argument B) a HARM related defensive argument or counterplan or c) denying that the impact results in extinction - if extinction is truly 100% inevitable, and the time frame is quick, you will likely lose, even if you win a big risk of a disad or a large solvency takeout. the flip side of this is if the neg wins 100% chance of a link and impact to a disad that results in quick extinction, then uniqueness becomes largely irrelevant.


Default presumptions on judgement issues when they are not spoken to: (these presumptions can be changed by either side, this is just how I will resolve things if no one tries to resolve it for me):

- If a counterplan is conditional, the status quo is always an option, even if the 2NR “goes for” the counterplan. If the neg loses the counterplan I will still evaluate whether they win defending the status quo. If the neg does not speak to this and the aff argues that I should not default to the status quo because the 2nr went for the CP and did not cite the status quo as an option than I will defer to the aff on this because they are the only ones who have spoken to it. If a counterplan is dispositional and the 2nr goes for it, I will assume the status quo is not an option even if the aff wins a perm, unless the 2nr specifically says that they can default back to the status quo if they lose the counterplan.

- Calling something a voter and saying “reject team not theory” only applies to positions that are being extended by the other side. If the other side does not extend that position but does not answer the “voter” it is not “dropped” unless you have ALREADY explicitly explained why it should be a voter even if they don’t extend the argument. “reject team not theory” is not the same argument as “reject team even if they don’t extend the argument”. If your argument changes from the former to the latter, it is a new argument which the other team gets new answers to.

- Not all arguments have to be explicitly extended. For instance, if the neg does not question the terminal impact to an advantage in the 1nc, and the 2ac answers the advantage arguments but does not extend the terminal impact, this is not “new” in the 1ar.


CP stuff

- most cp theory objections are difficult in front of me.

- my strong presumption is that cp/perm theory other than dispo/conditionality is a reason to reject the argument not the team so long as a team makes that argument. I will admit that I have been having some scary thoughts about high tech ways the aff could convince me that “rejecting the argument” is not enough in the case of certain cp’s, but….they’d have to be really good on it. I can’t believe I just wrote that. Terrifying.

- ultra generic counterplans which compete on normal means or certainty of plan are almost certainly bad for debate. This is especially true when the condition is obviously totally unrelated to the aff (ie condition tactical withdrawal from Europe on Russian reciprocation with a comparative solvency advocate has a better defense than condition on European protection of the linx).

- if debated equally by both sides, cp's probably must be both textually and functionally competitive.

- both the aff and neg must have an offensive reason to prefer their interpretation

- if you are aff, the best way to defend a theory argument is to have a counterinterpretation of what the neg can do/counterplans they can run which solves most of the negs offense.

- most theory debates are won by comparisons/reasons your offense comes first.

- negs get away with defending lots of theoretically suspicious cps because the neg makes 15 arguments on theory and the aff drops a few.


Kritik stuff

- if you are aff, and you do not defend enactment of your plan, or defend your plan in context of the rest of your speech act, or do not have a plan, you should strike me.

- i am pretty bad for the k. if you are neg, I’m not the worst for the k, because I’m generally good for the neg, but you are almost certainly relatively better off going for something else in front of me.

- most times affs lose on the k because the neg makes a lot of different reason why the k comes first (turns the case, alt solves the case, ontology 1st, reps 1st, methodology 1st, no value to life, etc - and then the aff drops one. when the aff drops one of these arguments they almost always lose. when they don't the frequently win.

- most times the neg loses on the k its because the alt can't solve the case or achieve its own objectives. most negs read alt evidence that assumes rejection on a broader scale than just the instance of the affirmative. when the neg defends this broader alt, they have difficulties with perms, when they don't, they have difficulties with the alt.

- i am pretty good for the aff on framework questions. this doesn't make the k impossible for the neg, but it does mean that it is tough to win that the aff shouldn't get to defend implementation of their plan vs your k alt.

- the aff could win a ton of k rounds in front of me on we still get to weigh our aff, your k doesn't turn it or solve it, our impacts are fast and big, and your alt is stupid.

- it seems like most of the reason methodology comes first is because bad methods produce bad outcomes...which seems to beg the question of the outcome....this is useful for the aff.


Topicality stuff

- i am good for the neg on T

- that being said, i am worse for the neg on stupid T arguments than i was a couple years ago, possibly much worse.

- I’m becoming increasingly good for the aff on “impossible pics” arguments and “contrived interpretations bad”. The key for both sides on the “pics” question is to explain why X ground/limits are better lodged with the aff than the neg or vice versa.

- you must have a counterinterpretation or you will lose

- you must have an offensive reason to prefer your interpretation or you will lose.

- arguments like "reasonability" are pretty close to dead in the water.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll judge.


I will vote on pretty much anything, and I mean anything, so long as you win the argument and give me a reason to give a shit.



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 and why the precedent that they set is not the way debates should go down.


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. I will default to reject the arg and will be admittedly fairly hard-pressed to change that stance if the other team isn't particularly abusive. This isn't true for Condo although it is up in the air depending on the specific situation. PICs and Consult, although usually in the reject the arg area, can be bad enough to reject the team, I will not immediately make it a VI either, so, as with condo, CLASH.


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. It doesn't have to be mag, prob, tf, just make it something that explains your impact and COMPARES it to the other impact.


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, see above for specifics on CP theory.


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 than that though) 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.


I don't default to any particular framing of the ballot, maybe policymaker, so unless you're running a "normal" strat tell me what the ballot is.


Emphasize what args on the flow should matter. I don't necessarily default to offense-defense but it definitely makes the round easier. I could be persuaded that D on the DA with a good chance that the aff solves the 1AC impact, I might vote aff despite the lack of offense.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll judge. If you need my paradigm I'll dig it up, but I'm pretty much tab.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm good with bond and delichtig, not Liam.


No offense, but your paradigm you seem fairly aff biased and there is a fairly high chance there will be a k in the 1NC.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh god you ran the aff I run... now I have to judge.


My paradigm is that I go to Beacon - I like K's but I'll vote on other shit too... If you want a full paradigm I'll find it :P

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bump. It's been over two weeks since the last speech was posted. Are you planning to finish the round?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is security?


How do we securitize (sp?) North Korea?


What does a world of the affirmative look like?


Does the affirmative solve for all of security?


Do you defend state action?


Do you claim any discursive advantages?


I'll probably have more.

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.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Create New...