Worku,+Robel

Northwestern University ‘16
I’ll be judging at Woodward.

Cliff notes—
Do what you do and do it well. Anything’s fine given that it is debated well and you can justify it.

Longer version—
Regardless of what my personal preferences may be, you should go for what you’re best at. Along with that, I’ll try my best to not let my personal preferences interfere with how I view the debate.

DA/Case—
probably my favorite debate. I kinda dig the politics disad, but I recognize that it can be contrived and outright stupid sometimes. Impact calculus is very important and I adore well explained turns case arguments – they can heavily move the debate in your favor. I am willing to assign zero risk of a disad to the point that winning those arguments is wholly irrelevant in my decision. Not sure where I sit on the whole ‘uniqueness controls the link’ business. If this becomes a thing, I’m open to whatever framing is better explained in the debate.

DA/CP—
also good. Here’s sort of where I lean on stuff: Conditionality—1 or none is swag. 2 is probably fine, but I can be persuaded otherwise. Anything more and you might be pushing it. I will not kick a counterplan for you unless I’m explicitly told to do so. Kicking planks makes negative sense to me—it’s indistinguishable from reading multiple counterplans and actually probably worse because of the different permutations of the counterplan that are possible. Keep that in mind. Counterplans that allow the possibility of doing the entirety of the affirmative are probably illegitimate and a good 2ar on theory can probably get me to reject these. I can clearly be persuaded otherwise. An exception is if you have a solvency advocate in context of the affirmative. If you can prove that the counterplan is a germane question in the aff’s lit base, then that will do you a lot of good. International fiat—no real preference here. If the neg has a solvency advocate or otherwise comparative evidence, then it’s probably fine. PICs—probably good, IF it is a pic out of a __mandate__ of the plan. A well-researched strategy (not some tiny contrived net benefit) will be greatly appreciated. Note—this doesn’t mean I’m a fan of word pics (no me gusta). --good pic—a solvency advocate that is comparative with the aff --iffy pic—pic out of something in the plan and just reading a net benefit—aff arguments that you could just read it as a disad are persuasive here Solvency advocates are an absolute necessity.

Topicality—
also good. I think it’s important to determine what the topic should look like. Impact calculus is very important. Winning that the aff unlimits the topic gets you nowhere if you don’t explicitly impact that. Comparison between different standards is also critical – does enhancing topic-specific education justify possibly ‘opening the floodgates?’ I don’t know, so you should tell me. Unless I’m told otherwise, I’ll default to competing interpretations. But I do find a reasonability argument that posits topicality as a bar for permissibility within the debate (instead of finding a marginally better/more limited topic) to be quite persuasive. Topicality is not genocidal, or racist, etc. Saying it's an RVI is probably an RVI.

Kritiks—
I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not well-versed in k lit. This absolutely does not mean that I won’t vote for them. What it does mean is that it’s going to require explanation. Words with more syllables than I have fingers will probably require some sort of definition or explanation early on because if I get too confused, I may just check out and start doing Sudoku puzzles (websudoku.com is awesome!). The more specific it is the better off you are. Even if you don’t necessarily have the evidence to back it up, being able to contextualize your generic evidence in terms of the 1ac (pull quotes from their authors – so much swag) will help you a lot. In addition to all of this, you must be able to explain the impact level very clearly. Winning the aff is biopolitical or whatever is insufficient, explain why I should care about that. Turns case arguments are good if explained well. Aff versus the k—the 2ar should be about the aff. I am a HUGE fan of arguments that defend that the 1ac is just straight up true and outweighs their business. Framework—if you win this, explain why this implicates the debate. If you’re aff, how does this deal with the alternative? If you’re neg, how do I view the 1ac? Floating piks—if I didn’t know until the top of the 2nr that the k was a floating pik, a rant at the top of the speech won’t change my mind. Hiding it with arguments like ‘alt solves the case’ or answering cross-x questions with ‘the alternative doesn’t preclude the possibility of the plan one day maybe being done (WINK WINK)’ don’t constitute a floating pik. It is an advocacy and should be argued as such. Permutations—great strategy if you can win some good link defense. Seems harder than it looks though. One thing that would help is to avoid the phrase ‘do both.’ Try to incorporate the language of the alternative text/evidence.

K affs—
if you defend a topical plan text (and just that) and read critical advantages, that’s fine. If you don’t defend a topical plan text, I’m probably not the guy for you.

Other notes—
--I have zero tolerance for clipping or any other form of cheating. If I’m sure it’s happening, the debate’s over and you’ll get zero’s. --not sure where I fall on the spin versus evidence quality question. I respect the work required to produce high quality evidence, but debating the warrants of that evidence is also important. Qualifications matter, but only if you make them matter. An argument doesn’t require evidence, and evidence is not an argument. A terrible piece of evidence can be answered with a short smart analytic. --aside from conditionality and topicality, my default position on theory arguments is to reject the argument and not the team. If you can explain why a certain practice hurts the game, then this can change, but the phrase ‘voting issue’ doesn’t mean much to me. --I view myself as a rational decisionmaker/pretty smart dude weighing the costs and benefits of the plan. I have NO control over the federal government. Means that arguments like intrinsicness don’t make much sense because how old people in Congress would react to the aff isn’t within my control and is probably relevant to my consideration of the plan. Yeah, I’m willing to vote for these politics theory arguments, but anything that requires me to adjust how I posit myself within the debate requires an explicit argument within the debate. This also means that one card top of the 2nc arguments like Schlag or Kappeler can be almost waived off in the 1ar by placing yourself in the same position that I do. --though I think that existential risk/try or die framing can be really persuasive, that doesn't mean I'll ignore your ability to remedy those harms --speed is the amount of arguments that I get on my flow in a certain amount of time. Speaking at an absurd wpm is irrelevant if I’m left scratching my head and you’re incomprehensible. Clarity is very important. I won’t say clear, but I have a bad poker face—use that (not just for this clarity thing) --being aggressive/competitive is good, but don’t be a jerk. I don’t like meanie pants, and your speaks will reflect that. Respect your opponents. --paperless—prep ends when you’re done prepping. I won’t take prep for saving/jumping. But don’t take advantage of that or I’ll get angrier than an old man trying to return soup at a deli. --I LOVE SEINFELD. I own and have seen every episode multiple times. If you can somehow make a good/relevant Seinfeld reference, I’ll love you. --I like jokes. A lot. If you’re funny, I’ll like it/reward you, but don’t force it. My sense of humor is also a little strange. --debate like you care about the activity. If it’s clear that you’re reading bad arguments just to screw around, I’m not gonna dig it. I don’t really care about how you dress or if you sit to speak or whatever, but once you start the timer, you’re playing to win. --look at me during cross-x/when you’re speaking. You’re not trying to get the other team’s ballot. You can call me Robel (pronounced Row-bell), calling me ‘judge’ is awkward --I’m from Canada—feel free to make fun of me (I do it all the time) --heg is good.

Speaker points—
Below a 27—you’re either way out of your league or did something to offend me (don’t call me Rahul Patel, or him Robel) 27—you need some work 27.5—average 28—above average 28.5—you were pretty good 29—you were swag 29.5—you were REALLY swag 30—you had more swag than this outfit – [|__http://www.thebounce.ca/files/eddie-murphy-delirious-800-75.jpg__] (damn near impossible, but wearing it would get you close)

Questions? Ask me before we start. Good luck and have fun.