Bailey,+Ken

Ken Bailey Wake Forest University

The best way I can summarize my philosophy is this: I am willing to vote on any argument presented in the debate, but that doesn't mean I like to hear every argument. However, I understand that sometimes judge preferences put you in a tight spot, and maybe you get that judge you called a 4 or your ordinal 58 against a team you didn't want that judge against. My number one goal as a judge is to fairly decide the debate without infringing on your strategic flexibility as a debater. Consider the following defaults/ways to earn higher speaker points.

QUICK VERSION The biggest problem with debaters who go for theory is they never discuss what impact should be prioritized first.

DAs are evaluated offense/defense unless I'm told otherwise. That is, "risks" of a link, etc. always exist unless I'm told not to look at it through that lens. However, even under offense/defense, I think the risk of the link still needs to be meaningful. The whole "even a .0001% risk of the DA means you vote Neg" is a rarely true framing argument for me.

"Try or die" is becoming cliche and a majority of the time is not applicable in debates where it is made a teams' primary impact framing.

CPs that ultimately conclude the Aff is a good idea are probably unfair. CP links to the net benefit is an argument Affs mistakenly rarely consider.

Alternatives are the weakest part of the K, and yet are almost never discussed by the Aff. Neg should be ready to reconcile the "Case outweighs K" debate; I have voted Aff on Ks more often than not because an advantage exists that is not complicated by the K.

In almost every single debate I've judged involving a K Aff that questionably defends the plan, instrumental USFG action, etc. the Neg seems to understand they need framework in the 1NC, but then tries to find every excuse to kick it in the block. I'm skeptical of Affs that don't defend some level of instrumental affirmation of the resolution. Doesn't mean those Affs don't win in front of me, in fact, in the 3 debates I've judged them this year, I've voted for them 3 times.

I flow CX, and it's binding. Granted, it's not the same "line-by-line" style of flowing like I would do for a speech, but I do keep a record of it. This is one of the few non-negotiable defaults I have.

LONGER VERSION Theory -Jarrod Atchison is my DOD. That doesn't necessarily mean 2+ conditional options = MCO 2AR. Use your judgment. -Reject the argument, not the team is a hard argument to overcome. Not impossible, but certainly difficult. -Discussion of internal links to impacts and what impact should be prioritizedfirst is the conversation always missing from theory 2NR/2ARs. As anexample. you'll probably discuss that some practice skews 2AC strategicthinking. But, is that skew unique? What does that skew implicate fordebate? Why should that be the first thing I prioritize when I considerwhether or not the practice is allowed? -The more the CP concludes the Aff is a good idea, the more theoretically questionable it is likely to be. The less "real world" a CP attempts to be, themore theoretically questionable it is likely to be. The more case-specific and well-researched a CP is, the less theoretically questionable it is likely to be.

DAs -Offense/Defense is the default, but even under that paradigm the riskshould still be meaningful. For example, a 45% risk of the link means the linkis unlikely, but the risk is still there. A .000001% risk of the link means thatwhile the risk of the link is certainly there, it's too marginal to matter. I can also be persuaded to not evaluate DAs through offense/defense. -Find ways to turn the case. You'll win more debates. -Try or die is a substitute for real impact framing in almost every H.S. debateI've heard it argued in. Some debates it's true, many debates it isn't.

CPs -For theory, see above. -CP links to the net benefit is an argument rarely exploited by the Aff. Consider doing so, it's true more often than you'd think.

Ks -Alternatives are the weakest part of any K. Plan your strategy accordingly. -Perms are more dangerous than the Neg likes to think. They can severelymitigate the impacts to any K link if handled poorly by the Neg. Asserting thatthe Aff has to link to the K or it severs is likely not going to be enough. -Ks are also vulnerable to impact turns. Negs that meet those turns head onrather than just assert that they are new links are more likely to get higherspeaks. -Affs lose a lot of K debates in front of me because they drop a "landline"argument (No VTL, Bad epist/method = no Aff, Ethics first, etc.). Don't be oneof those teams.

T -I don't pay attention to this topic at all. I don't know how it has evolved, what the high school community thinks of it, etc. Plan your T debate accordingly.

Any other questions, feel free to ask!