Thies,+Drew

Background: I debated 4 years at Olathe Northwest in Kansas and am currently a fourth-year debater at Wake Forest.


 * Meta-Issues – **

1. This probably seems basic, but I try to resolve all things on the flow before I start doing too much outside work. This means a few things:

(a) card spin is usually weighed over exactly what the evidence says. If one team does work that another answers poorly, I will not let “read our evidence” be an effective answer. If there is decent enough clash and comparison, I will be more apt to read evidence and quality then plays a significant role (on that note, who writes the evidence and who/what they cite I think is largely over-looked and unfortunately so).

(b) In the same vein, explained case turns and impact scenarios via-a-vis how they interact with others in the round will do wonders for you, even if it isn’t expressly in a piece of evidence. Smart arguments don’t always need to have somebody else saying them.

(c) I am not the world’s fastest flower. Rebuttals are usually easy to track, but don’t expect me to “pull the trigger” or whatever because the other team dropped point 6 on a 14 point condo block that you read in the 2AC like it was the mead card. If it’s not on my flow, it’s not an argument you made. I usually will say “clear” twice before I start getting disgruntled.

2. Cross-x is incredibly important for both strategy and speaker points--use it to your advantage. I think good cross-x’ers are the most fun debaters to watch (which results in good speaker points) and also are the best at contextualizing the debates in terms of the other team’s weaknesses. Similarly, a debater who uses cx just so their partner can prep and doesn’t ask aggressive, probing, argumentative questions can expect lower speaker points.

3. I have my biases, most of which are explained below; however, none of these (unless explicitly stated otherwise) should radically affect how you debate. I can be convinced of most anything. I think that debates are a lot more fun to watch when the debaters are on top of their game and would much rather you see something you are comfortable debating and do it well than try to bend to my interests and do it poorly.

4. As a general rule, my speaker points usually hover around 27.8-28 on average. Being funny, being smart, having fun, and not messing around all will benefit you. Trying too hard to be funny, being a smart-ass, acting pouty, and messing around all will harm you.

5. Be nice. This doesn’t mean you can’t be assertive and aggressive if it means getting an argument across or getting a concession in cx, but general rudeness for no real purpose is looked down upon and will have you bleeding speaker points in no time. Debate is a game and I think most people have fun doing it, so you shouldn't ruin that for another team by making the debate round a generally negative place.


 * Specific things – **

Using resolutional grammatical distinctions built into argumentation will get you far. I feel making clear distinctions and comparisons between interpretations usually gets lost in the battle to read as many frontlines as possible; I obviously prefer the former over the latter. I think for a neg to win, it requires a lot more than a small extension in the block and a hope that the aff trips ups somewhere. I usually default to competing interpretations though I have found that I am more sympathetic to reasonability arguments than most.
 * Topicality **

Obviously, everything above applies here as well. I am pretty middle-of-the-road on most theoretical objections, though I do have a few caveats. I think conditionality is probably good (I also think that the status quo is usually always an option, even if there was a CP that was gone for in the 2NR), though I am probably a bit easier to convince than most that multiple conditional worlds are not. I think most theoretical objections are a reason to reject the argument; I find it harder to be convinced that somebody should lose the round because they did not go for a CP that may have been abusive (this obviously changes in regard to conditionality).
 * Theory **

I think a good DA + case debate is one of the best that can be had. Good impact calc is obviously a necessity, as well as all the things that you always hear are good: diverse links, developed impact calc, “even if” statements, etc. I feel most comfortable judging these debate and have few, if any, biases.
 * Disads **

Few concerns other than those that are theoretical. I think that CPs are usually purely defense against the case and “extra solvency” arguments don’t hold much sway with me. I also think that case D combined with a CP is always a good idea. Internal net benefits aren’t used nearly enough and can be very strategic. If you're aff, combinations of arguments about theory/their solvency advocate in terms of the perm are very persuasive for me, i.e. "CPs that do all the aff without a specific solvency advocate justify intrinsic perms" or something to that extent. I think this is usually a better way to beat "cheating" CPs than straight up theory.
 * Counterplans **

The following are questionably cheating: 50 States/Lopez, doing the whole plan (consult/QPQ), multi-plank CPs that be gone for as several different CPs rather than one, weird process CPs (recommendations, etc.), 2NC uniqueness CPs. That doesn't mean you shouldn't read them, just know that a theoretical press by the aff is more persuasive for me on those rather than others.

First, I understand the basic theses of most the major authors, but if you are running something new, very topic specific, or, most importantly, an argument by a major author that is more nuanced than the traditional reading, I may need just a bit of babying. I only say this because these are the places where it is easy for the other team to spin your argument to their liking. I've read a lot of critical literature on some topics, almost none on others, so just err on the side of caution. Second, I think logical, analytical arguments about alternative solvency do wonders for the opposing team. Don’t dismiss them as non-starters. Third, I think it is hard to win a perm unless the link and impact are at least engaged on a competent level. Fourth, I think that framework arguments that the neg doesn’t get the K are starting to lose salience. I think it is equally hard for the neg to win that the aff doesn’t get to weigh their impacts. I think framework on the impact level (util, etc.) is better debated and plays a bigger influence on my decision. That said, I usually think that the aff should be able to weigh their impacts and that the neg should get to run Ks.
 * Kritiks ** --FOREMOST--please, please, please know what you are doing when you read these. There is nothing more painful than a team running a kritik and not understanding the intricacies of their own argument.
 * Update**: ever-increasingly, I think the aff is getting behind on framing questions concerning epistemology/method and simply writing these off by saying "ahh but weigh our impacts." You need to defend the way in which you come to a conclusion about your impacts/link scenarios. I view these presses as largely solvency take-outs by the neg.

I have never judged a round in which a team performed or advocated a personal project. I used to be a lot more close-minded on this issue (I once debated in Kansas, let's not forget) and that probably drove me way off the pref sheet. I don't think I am necessarily adverse to that style of debate anymore; however, my lack of experience with that kind of advocacy and my much more numerous experiences with "traditional" policy argumentation should be taken into account if you plan to go down this road.
 * Performance/Projects **