My new philosophy…
Debate is a game of strategy and persuasion. Those who can strike the perfect balance between these two will always win my ballot.
Things I prefer…
- I prefer debaters embrace the topic… Topic specific Aff, DA, K, CP, Politics-(specific links), Case, T, Specs etc…are all appreciated. I also understand sometimes you have to run a critical aff via poor ground for the Aff. This is fine just so it is not identity focused.
- I prefer debaters give impact analysis via timeframe, probability, and magnitude. I will always privilege high probability small impacts over low probability big impacts.
- I prefer debaters not attempt to speak at a rate they cannot handle. What do I mean by this? If you can go fast and clear then do so. If you cannot go fast and clear, please do not hurt my ears with your double clutching self. I will clear you once-- if you continue at the same pace I will assume you are punting me (if it is a panel) or you just want me to not get your arguments down.
Things I demand…
- If you plan on running identity arguments I am probably not the judge for you, but I will listen.
- I want a written copy of all texts Plan, CP, Alts, Perms etc… if overly complicated…if plan is the rez then no need.
- Be kind to each other. If you are rude it will hurt your speaker points. I am not a big fan of cursing in debate rounds.
Theory thoughts…All theory arguments are fine. Below is my only “theory pet peeve”.
Conditional strategies are fine but should be justified through the lens of Aff/Neg flex. So many times debaters want to list off all the advantages of conditional strats but fail to justify why they deserve the right to conditionality in the first place—Aff/Neg flex is how you do so. If the Aff has high flex–(meaning a lot of possible Affs, bidirectional resolution etc…) then the Neg probably has some good justifications for why they need the reciprocal right of conditionality to counter the Aff’s use of parametrics… If the Aff has low flex–(meaning one possible Aff) then the Neg probably will have a harder time justifying why they should have the right to conditionality…Seems like a PIC would be better in this instance.