Kaplan,+Tamar

I debated policy for 4 years at Highland Park in Minnesota. I worked at a debate institute in Minnesota over the summer, so I have a fairly decent grasp of the topic. I'm a freshman at Claremont McKenna College, where I am a little sad to be doing parliamentary debate instead of policy. I ran almost every type of argument in high school. I don’t think I have strong argument preferences.

Overview - Win, be nice, have fun, be smart. I am a technical judge. I will vote for nearly anything. All argument types are interesting and persuasive when run well. All argument types are frustrating and boring when run poorly. You can make arguments about anything in the round except: 1. Speaker points 2. Speech times 3. One team gets a win, one team gets a loss

I value impact comparison, evidence analysis, impact comparison, being smart, impact comparison.

I don't call cards unless A) it's impossible to resolve the debate without them, or B) there is question about the content of the card. I think it's unfair to smaller squads and to debaters in general when judges call all the cards in the debate – it’s your job to analyze the warrants. I will default to analysis written on my flow whenever possible. Of course, if you have better cards, take advantage of that by making better analysis.

If you have more time:

Aff stuff: Critical, policy, plan text, “advocacy statement”, do whatever you want. All can be good. If you are running a radical aff, please have a more nuanced argument than “debate is oppressive, so we should win”. If the debate is going to turn into a util vs. deontology debate: 1. There is a difference between deontology good and predictions good. 2. 2AC (or 2NC, or whomever) – Feel free to wrestle this debate back into an organized form, because it can get messy quickly. Instead of answering three “util is more moral” cards dispersed all over the flow, just announce that you are answering that argument in one space. 3. Please point out when cards are FYIs. “A fat man is blocking the entrance to the cave! The cave is filling with water! Everyone will die unless we blast him out with dynamite! This is utilitarian, and its moral!” That is a description of what utilitarianism means along with the word “moral”. That is not a compelling argument.

Topicality – Good T debates are really interesting. Please impact your arguments. “They explode limits and overstretch research” is fine in the 1NC, but not in the 2NR. AFFS – For your own sake, have a good, logical counter-interpretation. Nothing is more frustrating than hearing the aff say, “Counter-interpretation. Substantially is an increase! We are more limiting!” I will default to competing interpretations unless someone wins that reasonability is better and tells me what “reasonability” means. Does it mean no in round abuse? A smallish amount of abuse? (What is smallish?) Potential abuse? The term “reasonability” has degenerated into a totally meaningless debate buzzword, so if you don't define it, I will revert to competing interpretations.

Disads: Not a lot to say here. Good disad debates are good. The more specific the link is, the better. I do believe in zero risk. If a well-articulated and extended internal link take out is dropped, I will give the disad zero risk.

Case debate: Good, specific, blabla. What happened to case analytics? If the aff has cards that internally contradict or have massive alternate causalities or the case just doesn't make sense, you don't need a card to make the arg.

Counterplans: Counterplans should have a net benefit. I will vote aff on presumption unless given a reason to shift presumption neg. I think well-researched PICs are really interesting. Nearly always, teams would benefit from having an interpretation of what a competitive counterplan is. I don't have defaults on this.

Kritiks: Good k debates are great. I have a fairly good working knowledge of most common areas of critical literature. You don't need to explain what “biopower” is, but if you are throwing the word around every sentence in lieu of real analysis, that's bad. Theory – I love __good__ theory debates. I am a very good theory flow, but please read your theory blocks at a slower pace. Like topicality, I will default to competing interpretations. Unless you advocate a specific interpretation (“PICS with solvency advocates are good”) I will assume you are just defending an entire class of arguments (PICS good, consult good, etc). If I am told to analyze the debate through a framework of reasonability, //please tell me what it means to be reasonable.// When someone asks what the status of the counterplan is, don't be snarky. “Tee hee the status quo is always an option but this isn't the same as conditionality lololol it's reverse semi-dispositionality!” It's conditionality. Unless someone provides an alternate definition of dispositionality, I will assume it means the advocacy can be kicked unless straight turned. Please please please, impact your arguments. Saying that conditionality “kills argumentative responsibility” is not an argument. (Even if you impact it, it's still a stupid argument, so just take it off your blocks.) Like everything else in debate, theory is about impacts. How does a practice in debate affect your ability to critically think, research, or learn something useful? If you don't remember who wrote your theory blocks, it's probably time to rewrite them. Cards on theory are nearly always a waste of time. Since you are a participant in debate, your analytics are probably better than the out of context card that says “conditionality” within 100 words of “makes me sad”. The one exception is a card in the context of debate or education theory.

I have very few biases when it comes to theory. I ran 4 conditional counterplans, and I also went for condo on the aff. I ran unconditionality bad. You can convince me to vote for anything if you win its theoretically legitimate, with two major exceptions. 1. Card clipping. Zero tolerance for this. It destroys the trust that this activity is based on, and it's just cheating. Mark your cards, and read what you highlight. If I think someone clipping, I will start writing down the first and last word and if they are, I will give them a 1 and the loss. 2. Making it emotionally impossible for the other team to continue. Debate is fun and enriching, so it's not ok for people to ruin it for others. You can run what you want – I think debate should be a laboratory for testing ideas, regardless of my opinion on them. But if you decide that it's strategic to make a racism good or patriarchy good argument, that doesn't give you the right to make a hateful or misogynistic speech. If it gets personal or turns into something that could be considered 'hate speech', I will definitely give terrible speaks. If the other team can formulate anything resembling a semi-coherent argument about why the offensive team should lose, I will vote against them.

I will pay attention in cross-ex.