Barsky,+David

I have never debated, but have a son who is in his fourth year of high school policy debate, and so I am in my fourth year of parent-judging; I’ve judged every speech and debate event, but mostly do policy. I judged over 30 policy rounds each of the last two years (Alternative Energy & Poverty) at novice through varsity level (including a number of TOC-bid tournaments), although almost all of my out-round judging is at the JV or novice level. I am a mathematical physicist turned university administrator, and so I have no special understanding of this year’s topic other than “common knowledge” and what one picks up by judging debates on this topic. My default paradigm is policy-making.

I can handle only moderate speed and I really appreciate enunciation (and correct pronunciation). I do my best to quasi-flow, and in order to vote on an issue, I’ve got to get it into my notes. If you’re going to go fast (and my idea of fast is likely to be slower than yours), then it’s important that you signpost and enumerate consistently. I really hate hearing, “Our second contention is …” if you never said, “Our first contention is ….” If you go too fast, I’ll say “slow,” and if your words are too indistinct, I’ll say “clear,” but I’ll generally not do either more than twice; I’ll just put down my pen and stop writing until you speak more slowly or comprehensibly. Be aware that there is a dangerous speed where I can make out what you're saying (so it doesn't occur to me to say "Clear," but where I am effectively using all of my processing power to understand what you're saying and so I don't have anything left over to take notes. It's a good idea to have your partner keep an eye on me to see when I'm in this dazed zone and to ask him/her to tell you to slow down. It’s important to remember that I need to understand you in order to be persuaded to vote for you. I don’t have a problem with you spreading (although what I think of as spreadingprobably is not as fast as what you think is spreading) through your cards if, before you race through a card, you tell me how it’s going to advance your argument and you give me the author name and tag clearly. It helps me if rather than spreading through disjointed cards, you take a moment to tell me how this card relates to the argument that you're trying to make. Weave a compelling narrative! If you’re going to use buzzwords and buzz-phrases, recognize that you may need to explain them. Your opponents probably know what you mean, but I might not and I’m the one judging. I know basic debate jargon (you can get a sense of what I'm familiar with by reading below), but you should not assume that I have any idea of what the zero point of the holocaust is (because I don't).

__Topicality__: I will vote on T, but I have never (yet) been persuaded by an ASPEC or OSPEC argument. I’ve also yet to be persuaded to vote Aff on an RVI.

__Inherency__: I will definitely vote on inherency, and as a mathematician/physicist, I believe that the status quo is not only the current state, but also the way that it is currently changing (and, if you want to be really Newtonian, also the rate of change of the rate of change).

__DAs__: I like DAs, but not if they’re too generic. You’ve got to prove a specific link to the plan. I want to hear some real evidence explaining how the plan leads to the disad.

__Counterplans__: I’m fine with these, but don’t run a CP where the mutual exclusivity with the plan is artificial (we’re going to use the money that Aff was going to spend on the plan).

__Kritiks__: You’ll need to explain the alternative, and you need to know that I'll try to listen to this with an open mind, but the “role of the ballot” argument is generally going to be an uphill climb with me. I’ve mostly heard Cap-K’s [and more recently Nietzschean-K's], and being asked to cast a symbolic first stone against capitalism [or to embrace the inevitability of suffering] by voting Neg usually tends to leave me wanting a better reason to vote Neg. My advice to Neg is to only go for the K if you're really good at it or if Aff has botched the response.

__Weighing impacts__: (Again, as a mathematician) I don’t believe in inequalities between infinities (of the same cardinality), so please don’t tell me that you win because you’ve shown that the other team’s plan leads to eight nuclear war scenarios and they’ve only been able to pin seven on you. On the other hand, I do distinguish between large numbers of deaths and extinction, and get annoyed when debaters incorrectly equate these.

__Performance__/__Non-traditional debate__: Zero experience here. I have no idea how I’d react.

__Extensions__/__Cross-applications__: Please don’t waste your time saying something like “Extend my partner’s Dumbledore card” if you’re not going to remind me (or //tell// me in case I didn’t completely get it the first time around) why this card is so important to your case. I consider cross-applications of old evidence to be new arguments, so don’t wait until rebuttals to make these.

__Calling for cards__: I used to say, "I almost never do this, although I do sometimes ask to see the plan text." I won't ask to see tons of cards, but I have found myself calling for cards much more often this year than I did last year.

__No tag team in the cross-examination__: I consider performance on both sides of the cross-x when assigning speaker points, so I want this to be just one examiner and one examinee.

__Language, politeness, etc.__: No rude or crude language, please, and no matter what the other team does, don’t ever call them dumb (unless you want that reflected, negatively, in your speaker points).