Smith,+Elijah

Elijah Smith Affiliation: Newark Science

Experience: 3 years LD University High School

3 years policy debate -Rutgers Newark/ Emporia State

LD Debate

I used to have a very long paradigm up, but people don't pay attention to that. I CAN vote on any argument extended and impacted at the end of the debate. If you are racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, or if your performance in front of me blatantly reflects some form of oppression I reserve the right to not vote for you. I've heard disgusting things in these debates like " We can kill animals humanely like we did Troy Davis" or people justifying sexual assault (not a play on their words, but them saying it was just). If you can get through a round without sounding like these young people, dropping a slur or telling me that certain bodies don't matter, this wont be an issue for you.

I don't care why you're running it, please just don't make me listen to 7 minutes of it in the 1NC. Theory shells read with "internal links" are annoying and repetitive. For example, if ground is good, you should just explain in the context of how your loss of ground was unfair in the debate taking place. I like a HEAVY standards debate and default to reasonability. Competing Interps should be justified. If you aren't going to impact turn the conception of edu/fairness you are answering, I usually don't find blippy defense persuasive. .
 * Theory**

YES. Do it well.
 * K's**


 * Framing**

In front of me, the money is in the substance/impact debate. I don't care how you do it, but the earlier you do it the better. Directly comparing the consequences/ ethical issues within the debate is fine. Of course, do what you do.

Don't be blippy, Don't read your logic homework in front of me (If X is more than Y, then X must be ethics based on the second condition of Kant's maxim) -___- You can really do whatever you want in/with your CX time. I enjoy the show and no I'm not going to flow it. Make moments count. I will be paying attention.

POLICY Debate

If you are a policy team, please take into account that most of the "K" judges started by learning the rules of policy debate and competing traditionally. I respect your right to decide what debate means to you, but debate also means something to me and every other judge. Thinking about the form of your argument as something I may not be receptive to is much different from me saying that I don't appreciate the hard work you have done to produce the content. I


 * Topicality**

I think the Aff should be related to the topic in some way. What that is remains up to the debaters, but I am open to voting on a T interpretation that holds the Aff to a specific reading of the resolution based on the text of the topic you received before the round.

Please slow down at the plan /counterplan text because I write them down. 2AC's should always include a framing issue against the K or anything with a heavy emphasis on timeframe. 2AR's should have impact calculus (timeframe, magnitude, ethical preclusion). I'll probably call for a lot of stuff after the debate, but please don't give it to me during the debate.
 * Policy Affs**


 * Framework**

I don't like "Instrumental Affirmation " as a mandate against the Aff, HOWEVER, I will vote on a trade-off disad that criticizes the discussion that the Aff has had on the grounds that it forces me to choose between the discussion being had and the one that the negative wishes existed. An example of this can probably be found on Michigan's Wiki as run by Kevin Hirn in Octos of the NDT from this year.


 * DA/CP**

I love evidence heavy, well impacted disad debates as net benefits to a counterplan. I appreciate this portion of debate techne more than any other. PICs are more than welcome, but you should probably only get a single conditional one to have the most game on the theory debate. Once you get past 2 conditional items in the 1NC, the theory game is up in the air for who wins it.


 * K/Method Teams**

I'm pretty comfortable with whatever you got as long as we don't hide behind cards. Explain your argument, what it means for me as a judge at a debate tournament, and what my ballot is doing in the back of the room. Tell me what you think an argument is and why you've won it.