Penikis,+Carlos

This is divided into three parts. If you're reading this before the round, read Debating in Front of Me and Speaker Points. If you're trying to decide if you should pref me, start with Prefs and then read the rest if you need more of an idea of how I judge.

=Debating in Front of Me= Everything below is just defaults or personal opinions. I’ll vote the flow, so any of this can easily change depending on what debaters say in the round.


 * Tech matters. A dropped argument is a true argument, and that goes for arguments dropped in the 2AC. If the neg defines words in the plan/resolution to establish competition for their counterplan and you don't counter-define them in the 2AC, you will not win the perm.**
 * I want to resolve debates on truth, but that's only possible when both sides do a line-by-line.**
 * If your opponents can't do a line-by-line and make a massive technical error, please give a minute long speech. You will win and your speaks will be very good.**

Disadvantages: They’re great. I have no default on whether uniqueness determines the direction of the link or link determines the direction of uniqueness. Figure out which one (uniqueness or link) you’re ahead on, and explain why it’s more important. In my opinion, there’s a good debate to be had on whether or not disadvantages have to be intrinsic to the plan. I think that not intervening requires me to default to an offense-defense paradigm, but I can be persuaded to act as if terminal defense exists if a team does the work for me. Please do that work—I really don’t want to vote on politics when the aff is covert and probably bipartisan just because the neg controls uniqueness and the courts could do the aff.

Counterplans: They’re good, if they have a solvency advocate. I’m going to be very sympathetic to theory and perm arguments for sketchy counterplans like conditions (unless they have a solvency advocate).

Kritiks: Contextualize it. Please explain the alt. I don’t know too much of the lit, but I find them very interesting. I’ll probably be sympathetic to any aff framework argument short of “exclude the K because resolved means a formal policy!” but that doesn’t mean the K can’t still turn and outweigh the case. Aff Inclusive Kritiks (that explicitly say that they do parts of the aff and/or plan in the 1NC) are probably legit. Floating PIKS (that clarify that they do the plan in the block) probably are not. Be aware that I am an econ major at the University of Chicago, and, while I will vote the flow, if issues are resolved poorly, the non-K side will make a lot more sense to me. (This is not an invitation to whip out your Objectivism Good file, nor do I think "taxes bad" is a good argument unless you actually know how to talk about why a specific tax is bad.) That being said, I vote on Ks all the time, coached a team that went for cap in an obscene amount of rounds last year, and, if you're good on the K, there's no reason not to go for it with me in the back.

Topicality: I’m very sympathetic to reasonability arguments. I’m very unsympathetic to ground arguments. I have no idea why the neg has a right to generics. Please go for limits. I don't understand what an offense-defense paradigm is for topicality or theory. A risk the aff doesn't meet makes no sense—the aff is either topical, or it isn't. If arguments about why I default to offense-defense are dropped, I'll default to offense-defense, but if they're debated out, I have a hard time imagining a situation where I'd evaluate the round through an offense-defense paradigm.

Theory: Unless a team advocates an something in the 2NR, I will really want to reject the argument, not the team. Go for education impacts—debate should be hard and I’m not going to want to vote for fairness unless the other team actually makes debate impossible.

=Speaker Points= I’ll award speaks largely on aesthetic appeal—you should sound persuasive and passionate about your arguments. I’ll give you points right after your rebuttal so your speech in fresh in my mind. Because of this, it’s likely that I’ll give way more low point wins than most people, but I think that’s alright because speaks and the W reflect different things. (But after one year, I still haven't given a low point win, so maybe not.)

You **must** do a line by line. If you don’t I will not give you higher than a 26. If you do a line by line, sound passionate about your argument, and say smart stuff, I’ll give you good points. I really do want to give you good points. Please be clear. I want to hear every word you say, because I will be flowing it.

I believe that a lot of judges should be taking speaker points must more seriously than they do, so I will disclose points and discuss what debaters should do to get better points if I’m asked to after the round.

Also, if you're crushing the other team, don't be afraid to end early. You'll probably get at least a 29 that way.

=Prefs= When I debated, I was most familiar with policy-oriented strategies. If you like to go for disad and case, or case-specific counterplans, I will be a good judge for you. Impact-turning the aff and other stuff like that is also awesome.

Consult NATO or a process counterplan and politics is less awesome, but I went for those all the time. I understand that sometimes it's the best you got, and I'll definitely vote on it.

I'm probably not a 1 for you if you like to go for the K all the time, but I'm definitely not a strike either. I vote on Ks a lot because teams are good at going for them and affs are bad at answering them, but my honest opinion is that most Ks are examples of sloppy logic, most conflate correlation with causation, and that rationality and capitalism are good.

I used to ask project teams to strike me, but I feel that was too broad of a statement. I feel that debate should be a place to test ideas you may not necessarily agree with, and I strongly disagree with any team on a crusade to change debate/the world through their performance. In addition, I feel talk about social location is totally inappropriate for debates. Where you come from should not matter, only your ideas should. If you're going to spend the 1AC talking about your social location, whining about how talking about government policies disempowers you (imagine that: in a democracy, you disempower yourself by talking about how we should change bad government policies), and calling the other team racist, please strike me.

That being said, I realize there are strategic reasons to read affs that don't defend a USfg policy. As long as you realize debate is a game, treat it as such, and don't become a moralizing jerk in the round, you should have no problem with me judging you. (A good litmus test: if you have no problem with reading politics when you're neg, I should be fine for you.) I think the best affs of this type are written as impact-turns to framework, and, while in my heart of hearts I believe that framework should beat these affs, I think it's rarely strategic to go for framework against these affs because the 1AC was eight minutes of why the neg's framework is bad. Debates with these affs can be very interesting and I have not problem with them.