Daniels,+Jordan

Jordan Daniels University of Maryland 12

Kent Denver 08 Policy Debater 04-08

General: I haven't judged any rounds on the 08 high school topic.

Cards mean nothing without analysis. This must happen in the rebuttals at the very least. Preferably, you should be drawing comparisons between evidence and arguments as early as the constructives. As a 1AR, I probably give them more wiggle room in this area.

My theory on offense/defense is a little different than most. I think that persuasive defense can absolutely win a round. I hold offensive and defensive arguments to the same standard of analysis - just because an argument is offense does not mean it automatically beats a defensive argument. The argument that defense on a DA, for instance, still means there's a "risk of a link" or a "risk of an impact" is not enough to win. I expect teams to explain how the DA is still possible if the defense in is true; and vice versa, that the defense means the DA is impossible or outweighed by case.

In high school, my 2NR was usually a combination of case, DA, CP, so those are the arguments I am most familiar and comfortable with.

Case: I think this ground is underused.

DA: I like case-specific versus generic, but that's just personal preference and shouldn't effect the way I judge DAs.

I have a bias against politics. I do not like the argument, I think it's a cheap shot, anti-educational, and often run very poorly. Most cards don't even resemble their tags and if the Aff points that out and I pull the card after the round, I'm probably not gonna give the Neg much credit. That said, I did run politics as a generic in high school, and I know that it's sometimes a necessity. But if you have the choice, I would MUCH MUCH rather hear a case specific DA or case turns instead of a politics DA.

CP: I am probably less liberal on CP theory than most. I think conditional CPs and PICs are generally fine. But if you run an abusive CP you should be good at theory debates because I will probably have a bias against you.

K: I'm least familiar with this argument, but I don't have anything against it. I don't think Ks necessarily have to have alternatives if, for instance, they turn case.

T: I generally think of T debates in terms of limits.

Theory: Impact your arguments like you would anything else. I went for theory a few times in high school, so I do think it can be strategic in some cases. Please go slower on these arguments.

Speed: I definitely wasn't the fastest in high school. I don't think you have to be fast to win, and for people like me who simply aren't fast it can hurt their efficiency and clarity. But I should be able to flow most rounds. All speakers should sign post well.