Stengel,+Ashley

Coach at Hillcrest High School (Utah) 5 years

__**POLICY DEBATE:**__ Over the years I have become fully aware of just how policy-making oriented I am when I evaluate a round. As a quick synopsis in case you are short on time, I flow on paper, am receptive to all types of arguments, happen to incredibly dislike contradicting strategies from the neg, generally prefer reasonability as a standard for T but can be convinced to vote on competing interpretations, and while I have high standards for the K, I love a good discussion of discourse and framework.
 * The** **key to the aff winning** the round is to show me that affirming the resolution through their plan has the potential to create a better future than the status quo.
 * The key to the neg winning** the round is to show me why the aff plan specifically is not worth the risk because it has the potential to shape a world worse than the status quo or why the affirmative's advocacy generates some sort of harm that only my ballot can help resolve.
 * Both teams, tell me why MY BALLOT is key!!!**

Now onto the specifics

__Kritiks__ The key to getting my ballot on the K is a strong alt. Without this alt I only evaluate the K as a case turn and will weigh the 1AC advantages against the K impacts.
 * Neg Teams**: I want to see a clear link to the case, meaning that as the round goes on detailed analytics and explanations will be more beneficial to the K story than sandbagging the block with 10 new link cards that simply mention a keyword in the resolution. The impact debate is obviously important, but is meaningless without the link so make sure you allocate your time efficiently. In regards to the impact and alt debate I am receptive to voting on in-round as well as out-of-round scenarios. Make that scenario clear and give me a detailed explanation of __WHY my ballot will mean anything__.
 * Affirmative Teams**: I am willing to accept a no link argument, but if the neg shows a risk of that link I will evaluate the impacts. Some of the strongest arguments I think you can make are no brink, case outweighs, no alt solvency, and of course turns to generate some offense. I am not the biggest fan of perms on the K, especially vague ones [see theory for an explanation on vagueness] but if the perm is dropped or if the perm solvency is clearly explained I will vote on it. Theory is a great avenue to answer a floating PIK (or to challenge vague or multiple perms), but theory should not be the only work done on the K. That tends to make for a very boring and tedious debate.

__Topicality/Theory__ I have a moderate threshold for theoretical arguments. What I like to see are clear abuse scenarios. Without that abuse scenario there is no link or impact with which I am inclined to vote on. I can be talked into potential abuse is a voter, but it will require that you explain why the potential for abuse is bad and what my ballot can do to fix that potential harm. I WILL vote on an RVI, again if the link and impact are clearly show (that means if the neg is really using T/Theory as a time skew-link, and that hurts the aff and possibly all affs-impact, there may be an offensive reason to vote Aff on the T or Theory). Now, vagueness is an argument that I think can have a lot of merit in the round. We have vague plan texts, vague CP texts, vague K alts, vague perms, and to really show that in round abuse vague answers/extensions! Give me the link and the impact and I will vote on the vagueness standard. Topicality wise, I am inclined to accept a reasonability approach, but will vote on competing interpretations if you indicate why that standard is the best and impact it with analysis about education and fairness in debate space. On Substantial Topicality, I am not the biggest fan of percentages as they lack a clear brightline, but if you run the argument and the aff doesn’t respond properly I may vote on it if the impacts are clearly explained. With this topic I think there are a lot of Extra and Effects T arguments that can be made and I can likely be easily convinced to vote on that. Again, theory is not the most exciting form of debate, but there are certainly strategic and legitimate times for its use. Don’t be afraid to use it but also, don’t overuse it in the round.

__Counterplans__ This type of debate can take a couple of different colors. I prefer CPs that functionally compete, not just textually compete, that have clear solvency (both mechanism and advocacy) and a viable net benefit. Winning competition is the key to winning the CP, if neg's show its competitive I will vote Neg and if aff's show it's not competitive I will lean aff. This means I prefer a CP that challenges the Aff’s mechanism/advocacy and has the ability to solve for the entirety of case as well as the net benefits that the aff cannot access. Additionally, this means my threshold for PICs like Consult, Delay, some Conditions CPs, and Word PICs, is a little lower. The neg can still win these arguments if they show HOW the CP solves better than the aff and WHY the CP is competitive, but the aff will get a lot of access to no solvency, no competition, and permutation arguments. In regards to perms, there are appropriate times and inappropriate times for such an argument. I think perm do both as a test of competition can work, but you need to explain why the absence of competition means I vote affirmative. Negs, if the aff is super vague with the perm, call them out! Use that to leverage arguments like, “any risk of the net benefits means the judge votes for the CP" and "the vague perm destroys competitive equity by skewing all CP ground to the affirmative and exploding the bright line for discussion, this is reason to reject the team/argument"

__Disadvantages__ This can be one of the most compelling aspects of policy debate, and yet one of the most underutilized. Uniqueness is important, a good case specific link is preferable, and if you can manage an impact other than nuclear war (I’ll still vote on nuke war, but I’m likely to accept well warranted “no impact” arguments from the aff) the Neg team will have me pretty well sold on preferring the status quo over the aff plan. Aff teams, please answer the DA with more specific analysis than case outweighs. Use cards and analytics to turn the argument and show why/how you solve for the impact scenarios.

__**LD DEBATE:**__ Given my policy background I am a very flow intensive judge. This means I will be looking for you to extend your arguments throughout the round and to provide warranted analysis. At the end of the round I will ask myself, under the framework provided as the ideal weighing mechanism for this round, what are the impacts to voting aff and what are the impacts to voting neg? If affirming the resolution has the best potential for generating a positive world, thereby upholding the framework I will vote aff. The neg needs to show me why the aff cannot access their impacts and thus not uphold the framework (defense) and why voting aff may actually cause worse things to happen and thus means you reject the aff under that framework (offense).
 * For progressive style debate**rs: I am good with speed, just make sure you are clear (absence of clarity while spreading means I don't write anything down which is not good news for you because I evaluate the round on my flow...) Negatives, you are welcome to run off case positions, please note the specifics below for each argument type. Affirmatives you can run a K Aff, but you still need to show me why that means I affirm the resolution. Both sides, you can run a V/C combination or a Standard, just be sure you explain why this lens is the best framework for the round. I will default to consequentialist framing if the framework debate is a wash.

__Counterplans__
 * Negatives:** You are welcome to run a CP, but you must show **WHY it is competitive and HOW it solves better than the Aff**. Please give me a clear plan text, clear solvency, and a net benefit. Missing parts will mean I am less likely to evaluate your position. You should also explain why you are a competitive option and the best option.
 * Affirmatives:** 1. emphasize why the CP and Aff are not mutually exclusive. 2. please perm the CP. 3. explain why the CP cannot solve, why the aff solves better, and why the CP would actually create harms. 4. show me that the CP does not have a net benefit. These four things can involve analytics as well as cards and will win you the CP debate. Please don't forget to cross apply your AC!

__Disadvantages__
 * Negatives:** Contentions on the case generally serve as the disadvantages to doing the aff, but if you want to run a DA instead of the more traditional case go for it. You need clear uniqueness, a case specific link (something the aff specifically causes to happen), any internal links, and an impact. Make the argument clear! If you are missing pieces the aff's defense may be enough to outweigh.
 * Affirmatives:** combine your offense and defense. the best arguments you can make against this DA with your short speech time is 1. case outweighs, cross apply the important case stuff. 2. link turn: rejecting the aff makes the problems worse. 3. no link: the aff will never trigger the disad.

__Theory/Topicality__ Topicality wise, I am inclined to accept a reasonability approach, but will vote on competing interpretations if you indicate why that standard is the best and impact it with analysis about education and fairness in debate space. On Substantial Topicality, I am not the biggest fan of percentages as they lack a clear brightline, but if you run the argument and the aff doesn’t respond properly I may vote on it if the impacts are clearly explained. Again, theory is not the most exciting form of debate, but there are certainly strategic and legitimate times for its use. Don’t be afraid to use it but also, don’t overuse it in the round.
 * In general**: I have a moderate threshold for theoretical arguments. What I like to see are clear abuse scenarios. Without that abuse scenario there is no link or impact with which I am inclined to vote on. I can be talked into potential abuse is a voter, but it will require that you explain why the potential for abuse is bad and what my ballot can do to fix that potential harm. I WILL vote on an RVI, again if the link and impact are clearly show (that means if the neg is really using T/Theory as a time skew-link, and that hurts the aff and possibly all affs-impact, there may be an offensive reason to vote Aff on the T or Theory).

__**PF DEBATE:**__ Given my policy background I am a very flow intensive judge. This means I will be looking for you to extend your arguments throughout the round and to provide warranted analysis. At the end of the round I will look to my flow to make the decision.


 * First Constructive speakers** do your thing, framework can be helpful but sometimes is a waste of time, I will be looking for you to show your expertise of the case and topic in cross-examination (that will help boost your speaks! To be clear I do not flow crossfire!)


 * Second Constructive speakers** I want to see you attack your opponents case soundly! If you are speaking first in the round, you may want to consider touching on your case with 30 or so seconds to explain "even if my opponents argue x on our contention 1, you prefer warrant/author/analysis" That can help protect your summary speaker from being time skewed. If you are speaking second in the round, I would strongly recommend you spend about 1minute going over the attacks against your case, extending the analysis/warrants/authors from the first speech to help mitigate the offense and give your summary speaker an easier time.


 * Summary speakers** please start to breakdown the round to key voting issues. You should not cover everything! You should clearly indicate your prioritization to me though.


 * Final Focus speakers** should provide comparative analysis between the cases and extend the voters given in the summary speech. I want the analysis of **WHY** affirming/negating is important, and **HOW** you are winning the flow versus your opponent.