Saez,+Grace

This is my philosophy for judging college debate. It pretty much applies.

In general: as long as you win an argument and a reason why that argument means you should win, you should be in pretty good shape. Also, I love debate. If I didn’t, I would not be involved with the activity. You might want to keep that in mind if you run arguments about how horrible debate is.

So, Policy, K, Performance? Two things: 1. I don’t like to on-face reject any arguments, but I do tend to think that “performances” that don’t defend the topic or … a coherent argument are cheating. Still, I don’t think that just “framework” debating will get the job done against these types of arguments. You need to have a strategy that deals with the arg, or at least a substantive reason why your framework stuff matters (more than theory arguments). 2. Apart from performance arguments, I think that the distinction between “K’s” and “policy” arguments is mostly arbitrary. They are all arguments about the value, truthfulness, or correctness of a proposition …. It’s pretty simple: defend the value of your proposition. Here are some notes on how to do that:

“middle of the road” K business on the aff- I always liked to run these types of arguments on the aff, but to my chagrin, a counterplan usually solved enough of the case to outweigh because of “the risk of a net benefit.” I think that approach is much more strategic than just reading framework. Affs – make sure to use your built in framing issues to exclude the negs args from my consideration.

“middle of the road” K business on the neg- see #2 about the arbitrary distinction between “policy” and “K” arguments- the suffix “ology” or “ism” does not automatically make an argument unfair, it just means that the aff has to defend a DIFFERENT aspect of their case. I never know why affs don’t have to defend, for example, the assumptions underlying their claims. However, I am open to specific objections about shady stuff K teams do (like vague alts, or refusing to specify if/how it solves the case). Other than that, just step up and defend that what you said was valuable.

K’s in general– “I don' t know what the lack is.” I don’t read this type of literature in my spare time … that’s because I don’t really understand it. Please PLEEASE PLEASE please explain this stuff, or I won’t understand and will look at you confused at the end of the round. *** I REALLY MEAN THIS, I AM NOT KIDDING OR JUST BEING SELF-DEPRECATING and I mean it when I say I can't vote for something I don't understand. Framework- prefer “race to the middle.” More arguments related to the topic = probably good.

Disads and “policy” advantages- totally fine. I don’t really appreciate the shit-cannon approach, so please make sure to really develop the arguments. I think defense is under-utilized/under-answered, so pay attention to that stuff.

Counterplans- as a former 2A, I have a love-hate relationship with counterplans. The counterplan is crucial to negative strategy/the ability to test every word in the plan text. On the other hand, it’s a shame that so many negatives abuse the tool with unrealistic counterplans. Who thought it was a good idea to write “overrule Quirin” or “engage the Middle East” into the Constitution as an amendment? Theory- I don’t like theory debates, but that is mostly because I don’t understand them that well. If this is what the debate comes down to, you will do better in front of me by slowing down and actually explaining your theory args, not just reading blocks. Oh, also, I don’t really know what “community norms” about most theory issues are – please don’t rely on some prior knowledge of debate theory – I DON’T HAVE IT.

Cheap shots- yeah, I will vote on them. Don’t drop these, if you are the victim. Explain the impact, if you are the perpetrator. See above about not knowing what debate theory “should” be.

Topicality- having a resolution is good. I enjoy a good T debate, but I probably err aff on reasonability questions.

Other things: - I hate prep-stealers - I flow cross-ex. It matters. A lot. Also, if you purposely try to confuse your opponent, you'll probably confuse me ... which I don't like, because I like to understand the things I vote for. - Ask if you have any questions, but this is my first year judging, so don’t be surprised if I tell you I don’t know yet ☺

Notes added for the NDT: - I’ve found that I really DO vote on cheap shot theory arguments. - I usually end up voting on conditionality bad when there were multiple contradictory conditional worlds and the aff specifically explains these relationships and their impact on the round/their ability to debate. - I’ve noticed that clarity matters a lot. If I can’t understand you … I can’t understand you. And, I kind of have a slow ear. *** I REALLY MEAN THIS TOO. - I have a Farm Bureau hat and I love it.