Mardian,+Peter

I competed in high school for four years and this is my third year coaching at Brophy. I try my best to remove myself as much as possible from the debate and allow the debaters to do whatever they feel is most strategic, but also feel it is important to disclose the following:

Topicality: I took T in the majority of my 1NRs. Absent arguments telling me to evaluate it otherwise I will default to competing interpretations. I feel both a clear explanation of the violation and the cases that are topical under it is necessary. I feel impact calculus is just as important on T as it is for a DA. Other than that the only real specifics are that I am not a fan of the counter interpretation that only your Aff is topical and I probably sympathize with "substantially" more than the average judge. I feel it is difficult to be negative against very small Affs, although "small" is to be determined by the debaters, of course.

Counterplans: If there is evidence the counterplan is a result of research of the Aff you are fine reading it. I am not the biggest fan of process, agent, conditions, consult, delay or PICs without solvency advocates. I think it is difficult for the Aff to defend against trivial distinctions if they are not mandated functions of the plan and deep down I am not a fan of the argument that we should learn about political processes year after year and XO is the best way to attain that education. Personally I am a fan of the argument that the negative can read any of these net benefits as disads to the plan but they do not also get to simultaneously have the Aff. I think it is difficult to generate solvency deficits to some of these counterplans. That being said, I recognize that there are rounds where some of these arguments are appropriate. It is difficult being Neg when the Aff is somewhat small or less read. Negative work is a question of prioritization and I recognize there will not always be case specific strategies. Thus, don't think you cannot read some of these counterplans in front of me, but do know that deep down you may have a theoretically more difficult time defending them when you are debating incredibly large Affs on this year's topic.

Kritiks: Generally I may require more explanation than other judges as I do not read this literature. I have no problem voting on K's as long as I have a reason to do so. Please tell me what the alternative does (if there is one). I also like well explained and specific link analysis and examples (historical or otherwise) of how the Aff replicates some sort of harm. Absent specific link work I will usually prefer the specificity of the advantages. My partner went for Spanos frequently and as a result I look favorably on using case turns to bolster the link and impact analysis that is being spun.

All of the above being said, I try my best to never evaluate rounds based on my personal preferences. Most often debates are won or lost because of dropped/extended arguments. Essentially, if you debate SPS, read Consult NATO and win that it is good for debate, my personal dislike of the counterplan shouldn't create any problems. I just think it's important for debaters to know how judges honestly feel about arguments as preferences can and are manifest in decisions. Lastly, if you are a little bit slower and much clearer, you will probably get higher speaker points.