Stern,+Cory

Cory Stern University of Chicago Laboratory Schools '12 Macalester College '16

Lexington will be my first tournament judging on the transportation topic

1. Go for what you’re good at. I’d much rather watch a good debate on a position I never went for than a bad debate because you were trying to please me. My senior year of high school (space topic), I went for DA/Case (mostly politics or deterrence), T, Impact turns (dedev, prolif good, heg bad), and the K (cap and security) relatively the same amount of times. Labeling yourself as either “policy” or “critical” is your loss.

2. An argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. This means that if the neg drops a voting issue that was made in the 2AC, I will not vote on it if I don’t understand why it’s a reason to reject the team, or what the voting issue was. New explanation in the 1AR means the 2NR gets new arguments.

3. Offense/defense is often useful but not absolute.

4. Debate is a speaking activity. It will hurt your speaks to read as quickly as possible in a monotonous tone. It will also increase the likelihood of me missing an important part of your speech.

5. Flow. If you don’t flow, you can’t win – it’s as simple as that.

6. Smart analytics can easily beat bad cards. I would much rather vote for the smarter team over the team that reads an atrocious argument that the other team doesn’t have carded answers too.

7. Cross-x is important. So are “even if” statements. You aren’t winning everything, so explain why what you’re winning is more important than what the other team is winning.

8. Qualifications are much more important than most debaters realize.

9. I wont kick the counterplan unless I’m told it’s an option.

10. Don’t be afraid of going for theory – invest time on it, and you have my ballot.

-I often had 2 conditional advocacies in my 1NCs, but I recognize that it’s somewhat abusive. If you go for conditionality, explaining potential contradictions and in-round abuse is extremely persuasive.

-I don’t really care if the 2NR is an abusive argument as long as the negative can defend its legitimacy. Going for these types of arguments will not hurt your speaker points as long as they are well executed. However, teams that do go for these arguments do not need a self-serving counter-interpretation such as “we should get one consult counterplan” – explaining the advantages of consult counterplans is sufficient and avoids subjective interpretations.

11. T specifics:

-Reasonable limits is generally the most important standard

-Explain terminal impacts – why does fairness matter? Is it more important then the education gained from the aff? – these are questions that should be addressed.

-I will default to competing interpretations if there is no discussion of this issue

-I don’t know what it means for an aff to be at the “core of the topic” under this year’s resolution, because I have not been very involved this year.

12. K debates:

- The team that wins framework is usually the team that wins the debate. Explain what your framework is, what it means for the judge, and how I should assess impacts.

-Explain the alternative -Make the debate specific to the aff - this is especially important in the link debate.

-Links can usually be used as turns case arguments as well.

-I have debated against and watched “Virillio” debates upwards of 25 times. I have yet to see a team execute it well, so please don’t try unless you are sure you know what you’re doing.

13. You’re in a tough spot if you haven’t counter-defined words

14. Prep ends when you tell me your done. I’ll trust that you’re not stealing prep during the “flashing time”, but it’ll piss me off if I catch you. If your computer breaks, it’s no big deal. Just try to go as quickly as possible. Paperless teams MUST be able to PROVIDE the other team with TWO copies of the speeches. If they only have one viewing computer, the other team has the right to ask for another copy on their own computer. I trust that the other team will delete the documents off their computers at the end of the round.

15. Have fun! I like debate, but if you’re an asshole I won’t enjoy judging you.

A couple of final thoughts:

“Debater Flex is the wave of the future: I would have loved to have been a part of the Dartmouth coaching staff and squad when they were brainstorming a negative strategy for this debate. Although they had an extremely limited amount of time, they had two fantastic debaters in Josh and Kade that could execute a wide range of arguments leaving no option unavailable. In this debate, they had two case specific counterplans, a well developed kritik, two topicality arguments, etc…This debate reminded me that debaters who self identify as “policy” or “kritik” are missing out on a wide range of ways to win. Forget the labels, just think of everything as an argument. Some arguments require more understanding than others, but they are just arguments. If you want to be able to take on a new high tech aff with less than 45 minutes of prep before the final round of the NDT, the last thing that you want to tell your coach/partner is “I can’t argue __.” Debater flex is the past, present, and the future and I hope that students will see Josh and Kade’s 1NC as an example of how important it is to be versatile.” – Jarrod Atchison

"I think CX could be used more effectively in most debates, especially to clarify arguments and get commitments. CX answers are usually binding (e.g. what the plan does), but are relevant only as they are used to make arguments in speeches. I try to take notes on CX regarding matters like what the plan and counterplan actually do." - Ken Strange