Khalif,+David

University of Kansas Class of 2019 Debated 4 years at Blue Valley North High School.

Please don't use insane acronyms or expect me to understand all of the intricate parts of the topic. I will flow and understand what you tell me, but I was mainly a policy debater in high school. I will flow all arguments and weigh all arguments based on how the debaters tell me to value them. I believe that the role of a judge is to do as little work as possible when coming to a decision. If debaters are not making clear reasons for why they should win then I won’t be persuaded and I will not pull strings for a certain team. I think strategy and decision making are important skills. If you want to win the debate you must paint a clear picture of why you should win or why the opponent should lose.
 * Surveillance: I have judged 0 rounds on this topic.**
 * Overview **


 * General Specifics **
 * Spreading**- I can keep up with any speed, but it is only fine as long as you are reading tags clearly and not slurring words during the text of the card. If you aren’t reading a card clearly, I will yell clear. After that I will stop flowing if you don’t slow down.
 * Disclosure**- I am not highly persuaded by disclosure theory, but if it is read I will evaluate it. I think that disclosure can be good, but I don’t believe in forcing norms on the debate community.
 * Cross-X** – This is the best place to earn extra speaker points and to build a good ethos. I value cross-x very highly and believe that the best teams are those that can use three minutes to change a debate. I also HATE people who answer questions by not answering them. If you think you are clever by spiking out of answers, you will be docked speaker points.
 * Evidence vs Spin** –Spin will always come first. I don’t want to call for evidence, but if it comes down to that usually evidence is the tiebreaker.


 * Argument Specifics **


 * Case ** – impact calculus is paramount for the affirmative no matter what the 2nr is (the exception being T). That means that impact defense is key or “try or die” becomes persuasive. I generally give the aff some risk of winning some case solvency, but there is nothing better than a well-researched and well-prepared case strategy from the negative. Challenging all parts of the case with good evidence can put you in a great position to win. Case debate is often about detailed distinctions and it’s important to explain why those distinctions matter.


 * Topicality ** – I default to competing interpretations, but can be persuaded of a well-done reasonability argument. That //does not // mean “our aff’s pretty close”. If the 2ar puts the work in, reasonability can become an offensive argument. Limits are good, but overlimiting is bad – it’s the job of the debater to tell me who is doing what. Case lists and topical versions of the aff are always helpful.


 * DAs ** – impact calc should be the first thing I hear in the block and 2nr overviews of the DA. That also means every 2ac should have impact defense to the DA. Turns case arguments can be deadly when executed properly and a smart turns case arg is invaluable. There is no such thing as zero risk of uniqueness/link/internal link/impact unless there is a major dropped argument/piece of evidence. Otherwise, there is always a risk of the DA and everything must be contextualized. When the UQ and link debates are close, make sure to include which should be evaluated first and why.


 * CPs ** – I think that cp’s are all about strategy and ability to adapt in the debate. I am fine if the negative wants to run any type of counterplan, but I can also be persuaded by the affirmative on why certain counterplans are cheating. I ran the delay counterplan and I believe that debates come down to what arguments are made and how they are impacted. Also please do not run a counterplan without atleast one piece of evidence that says the CP can do the aff.

I am typically not persuaded by arguments that exclude the aff. If fiat is illusory and the aff can’t be weighed, this creates a bad debate which is not good to the debaters or to the judges.
 * Ks on the neg ** – I generally believe that the aff should get to weight its impacts and the neg should get its alt. Given that this is my least comfortable style of argumentation, the neg must do a good job explaining the alt and giving clear overviews that compare its impact to the affirmative’s.

I also don’t like the way negative teams explain some of the impacts to kritiks. If someone perms the kritik and you read a X DA to the perm. That DA must be impacted and explained during the time it is read. You can’t read a DA to a perm and blow it up in the 2nr. Just like a 2ac must explain the impact of an add-on to their aff.

Also if the 2nr extends an alternative, there must be at least thirty seconds of explanation on how the alt solves the impacts to the kritik and how it works.


 * Non-Plan Affs/Framework on the neg ** – I typically think that the aff ought to defend the hypothetical implementation of a topical plan, but can be persuaded otherwise. If you win on the line by line and you win the big picture, you win.