Marcus,+Matthew

Matthew Marcus Junior at Pine Crest I’ve debated about 100 rounds on this topic and I’m qualified to the TOC.

You should read whatever arguments you’re most familiar with. I don’t have any strong predispositions. Make sure that you’re clear.
 * __Short Version:__**


 * __Long Version:__**

Below are some things that may be useful to know if I’m judging

T is not genocide, nor will it ever be. I don’t think affs need to specify their agent. If you don’t ask in CX, you can’t win ASPEC.
 * T** – I will view the round through the lens of competing interpretations unless told to do otherwise.

I will vote on zero risk of a DA Unlike Kelly Haselton, I like politics DAs. Also, I often think that the link controls the direction of uniqueness/the DA, not the other way around. Arguments like this can be helpful to you
 * DAs** – I like them. Make sure that you do good impact comparison. In the end of the round, I need something to weigh.

For CP theory and competition, I have a few predispositions. I can be persuaded otherwise on these though. I don’t really think that consult or condition CPs are competitive or theoretically legitimate. If you are aff vs. one of these CPs, make sure to stress that you are not tied to immediacy or certainty. If you are neg and you have a solvency advocate, make sure to make that clear. I think that conditions CPs with clear solvency advocates are legitimate (maybe not competitive though). I think international fiat is generally fine if 2 conditions are met 1. There’s a solvency advocate 2. It doesn’t fiat a country like North Korea declaring peace.
 * CPs** – CPs are sweet too. I especially like multi-plank MSU style CPs that deal with the entire aff

1. Explain your alt – what kind of world do you endorse, how does that resolve your impacts 2. Framework – if you do not win a lens through which the round should be evaluated, you will probably lose to the hegemony aff that you are debating. I also need more explanation than the normal tagline extension of “reps key to policymaking – that’s Jourde”. Even if you win framework, you may not win the debate 3. Link level arguments – how does your K turn the aff? Are their assumptions wrong? Try to contextualize your K to the aff, or else the perm will probably beat you
 * Ks** – If you are going for a K, there are a few things that are very important that you do in front of me.

If you are aff, smart arguments about the alt combined with case outweighs is good. Make sure to answer their framework arguments. A lot of them are stupid, like fiat illusory. The perm also is a pretty good strategy, especially if they’re not explaining their links well. I particularly like the classic double bind.

1 conditional argument is fine, 2 is usually fine (if they blatantly contradict, maybe not), 3 is pushing it.
 * Theory** – Most theory arguments are just reasons to reject the argument. If you frame a theory argument as a reason to reject the team, you need to explain why it is. I’m unlikely to vote on cheap, blippy theory arguments. If you accidently drop “no neg fiat is a VI” in the 2NC, but answer it in the 2NR, I won’t vote on no neg fiat

That being said, clear, __fast__ speaking is the best.
 * Clarity/Speed** – I value clarity a lot, so I really want to be able to understand not only your tags, but also the cards that you’re reading. If you are unclear, I will shout clear. If this persists, it will hurt your speaker points. Very clear speaking will boost your speaks.

Things that will boost your speaks - Clarity - Good line-by-line - Good CX - Well thought out strategy - Jokes I don’t really care if you’re being aggressive, as long as it doesn’t become insulting or mean.
 * Speaker Points –**


 * Ethics** – If you are caught cheating, you will lose. Simple as that.

Also, performance teams need to make sure to say why their performance is a reason to vote for them. Why should I vote for you if you read a poem or talked about your personal experience? You should tell me.
 * Performance** – I’m not the right kind of judge for these debates. However, while I do think that affs should be topical, I can (maybe) be persuaded by very good performance teams that they are ok. Make sure to do good comparisons between the value to your type of education vs. the neg’s fairness arguments. If you do not, I will probably vote on T/Framework.