Mabrey,+Paul

paul e. mabrey iii Georgia State University 3rd year Judging 28 Rounds on Court topic 16 AFF wins, 12 NEG wins

To you, I am a caricature. To me, I am a character.

Two caveats on how I approach a debate round: First, I approach debate tournaments such that they matter. I try to make sure my body, soul, and mind is prepared so that I may coach and judge effectively. I will do my best to be rested, fed, and sufficiently caffeinated. Second, what follows are merely my habituated ways of thinking about debate. They are debatable. They are my presumptions entering the debate but may be altered through persuasion. The following categories are just heuristics.


 * How to Win**: 1. Compare, compare, compare. Compare everything: Evidence, qualifications, impacts, plan v. counterplan, interpretations of the topic, plan v. alternative, evidence dates, arguments across flows, etc. 2. Be strategic, no matter how you debate. Take risks, make concessions, and think about the strategy of the round. Think about how arguments interact with each other across the flows. It is easier said than done. 3. Have fun.
 * Flowing**: I start the debate with the assumption that I should flow in our community’s traditional manner and that the flow matters. Despite objectivity being impossible, I try to work within those limits. I do try to flow everything, it is harder the less clear you are. I generally give feedback on whether or not I am following.
 * Evidence**: I value good evidence. I generally do not call for evidence unless I am asked to do so. Asking me to look at evidence requires extension of that evidence beyond a tag and cites. I also generally call for evidence that is in contention. I do not over-determine the role of evidence. I like smart arguments just as much.
 * The Topic:** This is a special category. I think the topic, like debate, matters. That said, I have some familiarity with most of the topic literature at some level. I have no special areas that I have focused on. Do not assume I know it all, please debate with care when drawing out intricate details.
 * Theory:** I generally default negative on most theoretical controversies with the exception of topicality and conditionality. I think unmitigated conditionality may be too much; I am more comfortable with some interpretation of a limited conditionality.
 * Topicality/Framework:** Topicality seems to be about competing interpretations, if you play that game. I think Affirmatives should defend affirming the resolution and defend that affirmation throughout the debate. That said, I think the affirmative has some flexibility with what affirming the topic means. But that is not reason to do anything on the affirmative; I think there should be limits. Those limits are debatable. I also generally think that because the negative has so many options and we have had a lot of experience and exposure to different arguments; the negative should have plenty to say in their tool box. Framework arguments can be persuasive if couched correctly. I think these arguments should be framed as what are the educational, political, ethical or other advantages and disadvantages to role-playing in one world versus another.
 * Counterplans, Disads, and K’s:** Oh my! Whatever; such that they always matter. Different tools in the toolbox.
 * Performance:** All of debate seems to be performative.

If you desire more, please ask me or the Georgia State squad.