Dale,+Dummy

I cannot do this myself, so Roy Levkovitz had to do it for me... (Roy's comments, this cannot reflect well on his judging ability, but also look at Derrick's, go NU DD)

Avery Dale Northwestern 1st year judging – 12 rounds

Topic – I haven't judged a lot on this topic. Don't assume I know much about the topic specific arguments you are running.

Topicality - The more specific you can get when debating topicality the better. A good case-list goes a long way for either team, especially with my lack of knowledge of what affs are being run this year. I can be persuaded either way on the reasonability vs competing interpretations question, but I do think the aff needs a counter-interpretation in order to have a shot at being reasonable.

T is hard to outweigh, with either theory or K's. I think the Aff should read a topical plan and defend it - you will be fighting an uphill battle on the aff if your strategy against T involves saying that T is bad or that something else is more important.

Disads – Very good. I think the Link question determines the risk of a disad more than uniqueness does. I think your disad should have a specific link to the plan, in extreme cases I can be persuaded by 100% defense by the aff - there isnt always a risk of a link, if you want a risk, win your link.

Kritiks – I did not run many of these when debating, and haven't read the literature for whichever K you want to run. The more specific the kritik, the better – specific link to the plan as opposed to the system the plan operates in, specific explanation of an impact as opposed to a vague claim that extinction is inevitable, specific explanation of how the alternative solves, etc. If you can do that, I am a fine judge for your kritik.

Framework in K debates is overrated – it is very hard to convince me that either side shouldn't get to weigh their impacts in a debate. Framework arguments that the negative cant run a K alternative, or that the aff doesn't get to pretend the plan happens, are unconvincing. In the face of the argument that both teams should weigh their impacts and see who wins, you wont win your exclusionary framework on either side. Cards such as "discourse is a pre-requisite to policymaking," or whatever other framework cards people read, do play a role in debate, but they should be used for impact calculus (such as the aff might not solve as much because their discourse taints the plans action), not as a reason the aff shouldn't be able to talk about their plan being good.

Impact Calculus – Good comparative impact analysis will make the difference in debates on either disads or kritiks. I do my best to default to the best impact comparisons when determining the relative importance of impacts. Your impacts do not have to result in extinction – some good timeframe / probability comparisons can make a short-term war outweigh some far away inevitable extinction.

CP's / CP Theory - Counterplans are good, PICs are good, the more specific the better. I don't have a bias either way on conditionality/dispositionality. As I said on T and disads, it is possible to win on defense – good defense + a reasonability interpretation on CP theory is enough for the neg to win. I think that plan plus CP's with built in net benefits (consult or other process CPs) are probably not competitive.