Dinser,+Erin

Affiliation: Groves High School, Birmingham, MI (formerly with Dexter High School, Dexter, MI) Policy Debate Experience: I debated in high school, left the activity through college and I'm now back in my fifth year of coaching.

I have been minimally active in debate both this year and last year. My topic knowledge is limited, so abbreviations are not your friend, explanation is. Fair warning.

The following is outdated, but probably still accurate, bearing in mind that debate evolves pretty rapidly and I've been pretty removed:

The bottom line is that I think debate is amazing in that when 4 really smart kids walk into a room they can make that round what they think it should be -- and if they don't agree, sometimes they debate about what debate should be instead of the "topic" -- I don't always have the most in depth knowledge of what they're talking about, so maybe I'm a "better" judge for more "policy" rounds, but I am willing to be as smart and open and honest as I can be in honoring their right to shape that debate round into whatever they want. I'm trying to be better about objectivity and removing what I think is "true" or "makes sense" from my ability to evaluate all arguments equally, but it's an imperfect practice -- and sometimes I just don't know //why// I should vote for some things, or even what the argument means or says.

At the end of the round I'm going to look at what is on my flow (I flow well - speed is okay as long as you're relatively clear, and apparently I say "clear" a lot...) and make a decision. I am not going to do work for either team, and when the debate breaks down to the point that I have to, I'm going to be annoyed and I guess somewhat unpredictable, but the following is a kind of guideline to things I think if left to my own devices.

What does that mean? With regards to the following arguments specifically...

K: I think I'll listen to most anything, but the burden is very much on you to make me understand it. And honestly, I say I'll listen to anything because I don't like to be a pre-round interventionist, but Ks with alts that make me say "...so what?" are not my favorite, and you're going to have to do a lot of work to make me want to vote there. I like tangible impacts, and I like K debaters that bring their alt into the same world as the aff impacts, talk about the 1AC, and draw specific examples out of it - sure, your K is generic but make it specific with your analysis. I think arguments like "life is a prerequisite to value to life" are probably just... true and hard to beat, but not impossible. Nailing down that the rethinking or whatever of the alt precludes the aff from ever happening is probably a smart move for the affirmative, or at least that there are tangible impacts that will happen if we bother to take the time to do that. Do not assume you can use jargon as shorthand to a larger idea that I may or may not be familiar with. You're doing yourself a disservice in making that assumption. I also heart the line-by-line, seems like the best way to be objective. Something to keep in mind. But by all means, if the K is your thing, do it.

Theory: I think I have a slightly lower threshold for voting on theory - only insofar as if your theory arg makes sense in this round and you win some sort of impact to it then I'm probably a little more willing than most to vote there. I don't go in with prejudices that make certain theory args easier or harder to win, just win the flow. I think there's a lot of reasons debate would be less strategic in the absence of conditionality, but maybe more educational, who knows? Know that defending 1 conditional world is acceptable but their 2 is WAY over the line is probably going to be tricky to isolate offense to which your definition doesn't also link. Potential for abuse could be a viable impact if you win a link that their in round action actually does set a precedent for abuse. It's just important to know //why// I need to reject the team, or the perm, or the arg, etc. or why I don't.

Topicality: It's funny how something that you blazed through at top speed somehow becomes ridiculously important when you decide to slow down in the 2NR and you expect I have a perfect flow of it... I like a good T debate, I'm totally willing to vote here, in fact, I kind of enjoy it, but don't expect the minutia of your argumentation to be on my flow unless you covered T at a reasonable speed. I think T reminds us that debate is a game with indeterminate rules - you get to make them up in the round, I try to divorce myself from truth as much as possible on T, and if you're going for just "c'mon we're core of the topic" please explain why that's creating a better version of the game. Maybe sometimes bending a poorly written resolution creates a better version of the game, win that.

Performance: I need to understand more of what is going on -- in my VERY limited pool of samples I've found that I don't always know what I'm voting "for" in the 2AR. I don't know how to depart from being a flow-based judge. I want to be an open minded and fair judge, and it seems like line-by-line judging is the best way to be objective. But if that's not true, win that, explain that, otherwise it's probably better to strike me than to be mad that I will vote on dropped args.

I'm fine with CPs, DAs, too. I'm not committed to offense/defense to an extreme. I've assigned an absurdly low risk to a DA on a well argued no link arg. I don't have an issue with politics, even if it is a bit contrived, though I think politics theory needs to be answered. I think these kind of debates lend themselves to technical expertise and if you can keep a massive card war clean, organized and strategic, it's impressive. These rounds also tend to be very tangible and more fun for me, and I think I don't have a lot of notes here because I'm more comfortable and fewer subconscious biases come into play.

General/Random Things:
 * oh. my. god. don't yell. please. It's not more persuasive, it's obnoxious.
 * Just really, truly **don't make assumptions.** Ask me questions before the round, that's way better than being irate after the round.
 * I don't take prep for jumping, just don't take forever about it.
 * Don't be rude. I don't think you necessarily have to be overly polite, but be respectful of your opponents AND your partner. Everyone gets frustrated sometimes, but that's not an excuse to be a jerk. It can ruin good cross-ex. It is exceptionally rude to pack up during the 2AR, it makes me want to look for ways to drop you.
 * Cross-ex... I'm paying attention and unless you convince me otherwise, it's probably binding. (Like don't explicitly say the alt will never result in the aff in the 1NC c-x and then give a 2NR that's all about the floating pik. If you're going to be sketchy... be sketchy, just not by lying in c-x.)
 * I probably won't call for cards unless the actual content is contested. So make things happen in the round instead of hoping your ev will do the work for you after.
 * Label your off-case in the 1NC when you introduce them, let me know which flow you're going to in the 2AC. Why do I need to tell you this? It's just logical that you would want to be clear, but I guess this is an old-school belief.
 * Warrants are good, yo. Explanation is awesome. This is especially true in the last two speeches. It's really helpful to take a second to bring me into your strategic vision for the round, why did you make the choices that you did? Probably because you think arguments are interacting in a certain way. So tell me, and at least then you have a shot that I've looked at the round in the way you think is best for you.

Debate well, be smart and keep the round organized. Good debate is good debate and bad debate is bad debate, regardless of whether you're reading arguments I love or hate. Debate should be an enjoyable experience. It's going to be enjoyable if everyone is running arguments that they understand and can run well. You're supposed to be learning from debate. Oh, and having fun, too.