Martin,+Cody

I’ve debated CX for four years at Caddo Magnet High School, and spent a good deal of time on the national circuit.

General: I can probably keep up with you no matter how fast you go, but be aware that clarity has a good bit of impact on your speaks. I’m not going to be yelling “clear” at you unless I absolutely can’t understand you and you’re impossible to flow, but blazing through at top speed while throwing clarity to the wind could hurt you. I also have very little tolerance for debaters being absolute jerks to each other in round. Openly mocking the other team and/or personal insults won’t get you anywhere with me. That being said, I’m open to some clever sarcasm here and there; just know where the line is.

DAs: The politics DA is my most favorite argument in policy debate, and I worked with it a lot over my high school career. My favorite rounds to judge are politics/case debates, and if your politics scenario is something brand new I’ve never heard of, I’ll be that much more interested. I’m also a big fan of case-specific DAs, and coupling that with some great case defense/turns are my favorite types of 2NRs. Just make sure the internal link work is good, and that you do the impact work where it needs to be. Try to keep the generic link stories out too, since those are pretty boring since I’ve hear them 100 times. That being said, however, don’t feel like you should shy away from the more generic DAs if they’re a core part of your strat; Fism and Spending have been around forever for a reason, and these can be great if, like I said, your link story is specific and interesting.

Case: Like I said, DA/Case debates are my favorite. I absolutely love an impact turn strat, because they’re wacky in a good kind of way. Dedev, warming good, heg bad, you name it, I’ll probably like it. Defense is great too, and I’ll probably give you more leeway with it if you know how to argue it correctly, such as giving empiric examples. Internal link takeouts are even better, and if they’re case specific, I’ll be one happy judge. Just make sure that the 2NR isn’t just blitz extending case arguments; if the 2AR calls you out on it, I won’t consider it as much as if the 2NR did some really kick-ass explanation of it.

CPs: I ran some really dirty CPs, so I’m actually not as restrictive as other judges are. I don’t think any CP is inherently “cheating”. Yeah, that includes consult, conditions, and word pics. I’m completely open to these types of CPs, and I’m not going to do a face-palm right off the bat because you used them. However, I’m still very much open to theory when it comes to these. I’m more of a reject the argument type of judge, but if you don’t cover yourself well enough on them, I’m willing to reject the team. Case specific CPs are great for me too, and clever pics are always a plus.

Ks: I’m well versed in the run-of-the-mill Ks, so Cap, Security, Anthro, and Gender aren’t that much of a problem. But be aware that I don’t know the ins-and-outs of other Ks, whatever they may be. This is because, honestly, I don’t find Ks all that interesting. This by no means says that I won’t vote for them, but just know that my interest is not near as strong in this part of debate, and that if you resort to jargon about “the other”, I’m probably not going to care enough to try and decipher what all of that crap meant that you just regurgitated from the block you’ve had for 5+ years. But, like I said, don’t let this discourage you. I do hold Ks to a very high standard, and that starts with the link: I need detailed analysis on the link, specifically work on the advantages when it comes to the link. Impact work needs to be precise as well, outlining how it outweighs and turns the case, and how the case can’t be weighed against it (note: I’m VERY open to case outweighs arguments on the aff. If the neg doesn’t mitigate the case impacts, it will be very difficult for them to win the K with me). The alt must be clearly outlined; I can’t stand it when the alt is some vague idea that changes every negative speech, and it generally just really annoys me. Also know that I have a very low threshold for perms, and that the neg had better not result to their “AT: Every Perm Ever” page in their file if they don’t want to get smacked by some “out-there” perm.

T: I’m not one of those not-going-to-vote-on-T judges, so don’t be scared with it. If the aff is blatantly untopical, I’ll actually give you a fair bit of leeway on the T flow if you’re arguing it semi-decently. If it’s questionably topical, still don’t be afraid. If it’s blatantly topical (coughcoughHSRcough), don’t waste your time. What this means is that I’m going to get tired of your arbitrary definition of substantially if that’s the only applicable T argument you can find. Messy T debates and useless T debates are pretty tedious, and because most teams just can’t go for T well, it gets mundane and repetitive if you’re running T just for the sake of running T. My biggest concern with T debates is that some teams just don’t handle the standards properly; I need detailed analysis on the standards, how destroying fairness also destroys education, how education is more important that fairness, or how limits is the only real standard that matters. All the standards have in-rounds with each other, and if you can articulate this on good level, you might have a good chance to win with T if the aff just doesn’t seem topical. Also, I default to competing interpretations, and I don’t find reasonability to be all that persuasive.

Theory: GO. SLOW. I, and every judge out there, will miss something if you spread through your theory shell/block that’s 10 seconds long at top speed. Please, if this is going to be something that might be in the 2NR, especially if it’s CP theory, be clear and slow when it comes to theory. I’d really hate to miss some critical standard, or, even worse, get nothing down but your interpretation down just because I’m human and can’t write that fast. Now, with that out of the way, my views of theory change depending on the type. For the most generic, like condo/dispo, you’re probably not going to win a reject the team argument. I’ve never voted on condo before, and I doubt you’ll get me to unless you’re super-freaking-amazing. I have rejected the argument on condo before, but this is in cases where it just was handled horribly by the neg, and when there was legitimate abuse on the flow. I do think condo should be in every round, just know that I’m only willing to go so far with it. Perm theory is similar, but I’m more likely to reject the argument with it than I am for condo. Severance is very bad, so don’t go making perms just for the sake of making perms. It won’t affect the round, but it’s just a pet-peeve of mine.

Misc: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">If your aff is one without a plan text, or it’s a performance of sorts, you’re probably better off without me as a judge. I’m not completely biased against these kind of things, but I honestly don’t think I’ll be able to interpret or understand it as well as you do, so I’ll end up not really getting where you’re going with it. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask before the round. I’ll tell you anything you want to know.