Grace,+Josh

Background – debated at Chattahoochee High School for four years (2n all 4 years), then at Georgia State for four years (2a all 4 years), in which I debated under the coaching of Stephen Heidt, Neil Blackmon and Joe Bellon, so I think I’ve adopted a style of debate / judging that reflects that. I've read my share of debate arguments ranging across the board and I am willing to vote on almost any of them, if they are properly explained and well warranted. While I am more oriented towards a policy style debate, I will do my best to keep my biases out of the debate, so feel free to go for whatever arguments you prefer.

Forewarning – I am a 2L at GSU so I have not researched the topic very much.

Specific stuff:

Performance / Project – this is not my area of expertise. I’d be willing to listen to your argument but know this: I believe the topic is chosen for a reason. If your aff has nothing to do with the topic, I’m not the right judge for you. In instances such as poetry reading, puppet shows, 9 minutes of silence to prove a point, etc, I will be highly persuaded by framework, topicality, fairness, education, etc arguments. However, with that said, I don't necessarily think you NEED to have a plan text, so long as you prove why it's necessary to engage in such a discussion and why your discussion is key to learning more about the topic.

Topicality – It’s a voting issue. Not enough teams go for or extend topicality arguments past the 1nc. This is a shame, because I do enjoy a good T debate, especially in the context of smaller affs that raise suspicion as to being topical. Like every other debate argument, well developed stories and warranted analysis are a must. Default reasonability, but can be convinced otherwise.

NOTE – if you read ASPEC, be sure to ask in cross-ex. I’m not the judge who will just laugh and ignore the fact that you have read ASPEC. If the aff doesn’t answer it and the neg goes for it, I will vote neg

Theory – theory is a hard sell in front of me. I think most theory debates are blippy and teams aren’t doing enough analysis as to why theory is a voting issue. The only real reasons, in my mind, to reject the team are dropped theory arguments and status theory; in other words, I will normally default to rejecting the argument if I feel it’s theoretically illegit. Specific theory arguments  - Conditionality is probably a good thing, to an extent – teams should be allowed to have a couple of worlds that are conditional – when you get to read 4 counterplans (or variations of multiple conditional worlds), it gets to be abusive and I’ll be more persuaded by rejecting the team. Note: when saying your argument is conditional, you should let me and the other team know if the status quo is still an option  - PICs are also definitely good – affirmatives should be able to defend their plan texts and PICs are ample ground for the negative.  - Consult CP’s / Condition CP / Delay / Floating PIK are suspect – in most cases, I’d just reject the argument. With this said, this doesn’t mean that I can’t be persuaded otherwise. I will vote on to reject the team if the other team is impacting their theory claims well, extending strong analytical (or evidenced) warrants and provide a legitimate reason for abuse. It’d be hard, for example, to get me to pull the trigger on multiple perms are a reason to reject the team, but not impossible. However, you’re fighting an EXTREMELY uphill battle. Side note: theory debates get extremely blippy, as indicated above. For the sake of you, the other team and myself, slow down on these debates. The faster you go on theory (and T, for that matter), the better chance my flow becomes messy and I lose a few of the arguments made

The K – I want to preface right now: I do not read philosophy for fun. Most of my knowledge of critical authors comes throughout various Zak Schaller rantings and debate. With this said, teams reading the K should do A LOT OF SPECIFIC analysis and explain their criticism VERY well in the block and 2nr. For specificity, the more specific your argument is the affirmative, the better chance you have to win my ballot. Specific warrants and historical examples are a plus. In the words of Stephen Heidt, the alternative should “propose a method that could attain something worth voting for.” You should also provide me reasons to reject / disprove the necessity for the PLAN. For example, if you win a link to one of their advantages but don’t have one for another, I can just reject that portion of the plan and determine that the aff still does something good. For the affirmative, empiricism, specific harms and solvency extrapolation, general hole pointing and just simply defending your aff would significantly increase your chances for my ballot.

Counterplans – I enjoy a specific CP and DA strategy - I’d much rather hear a nuanced link / solvency story than your generic links / solvency claims about the topic. Permutations are always a test of competition unless otherwise stated so. Theory arguments are explained above. Word PICS need to have very specific evidence. Permutation to the do the CP on a PIC is severance – I believe that you should defend the exact plan text in the 1ac. I don’t personally like the argument that you can defend it but it’s like a “rough draft.”

DA / Case – Yes, please. I’d also love hearing a 1 off (some DA) and case strategy. While impact calculus and uniqueness questions are important, for me, I’d rather see teams spending their time developing the link and internal link stories, which are the impetus of the DA itself. The impact and uniqueness levels are less important for me than the internal link and link levels. This does mean you can skip over impact calculus – it’s highly important and necessary to win the DA, but realize it’s not the only thing. Impact turns – please.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Random other things <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; vertical-align: baseline;">- Extinction is bad, always <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; vertical-align: baseline;">- Good evidence > analytic <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; vertical-align: baseline;">- Bad evidence < good analytic <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; vertical-align: baseline;">- Smart analytics are fantastic – make lots of them. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; vertical-align: baseline;">- Intrinsicness is stupid, but I’ll vote on it if it’s conceded. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; vertical-align: baseline;">- Jokes are great. Especially about people in the community, such as Stephen Heidt. Jokes about pop culture are good too, but stay away from the overly used ones. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; vertical-align: baseline;">- Be nice to your partner. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; vertical-align: baseline;">- Don’t clip cards – this will be disastrous for the team that does so. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; vertical-align: baseline;">- Use your cross-examination effectively and wisely. Cross-ex is the most important part of the debate and not enough teams are asking the right questions. I listen very closely to the cross-ex and a great cross-ex will earn your better points.