Rafkin,+Charlie 

I debated for UC Lab from 2008 to 2012, and I'm now coaching for them. It's my first year judging.

General: -I’ll try my very best to decide debates based on the arguments made in the debate. Truth matters, but I’m not sure how to determine what is True except through the flow. Don’t let my extremely weak biases outlined below scare you off from making any arguments at all. -Although I think evidence quality is important, I’ll stick to the arguments made by debaters in every instance possible. I'll always read evidence through the lens of the debating done in the round. I imagine that I'll sometimes call for a few cards to help inform my decision, but I doubt I'll regularly ask to see a “stack of uniqueness evidence.” -I don’t have a favorite 2NR to watch or judge – good debating matters much more to me than the class of argument you prefer. Specificity in argument selection is nice, and may help you win, but it’s not all that important to me. I’ll be fine voting for Consult/Agent CP/Tao K and I won’t punish speaks if you get the job done. -I know very, very little about the transportation topic, so please explain acronyms/terms of art. -I loved debating. Because I liked it so much, if I think you’re being unnecessarily aggressive, I’ll let you know after the round and won’t hesitate to punish your speaks. -If your paperless stuff has a meltdown, don't worry about it. You can stop the timer and get everything back in order.

Specifics:

T: -I went for T frequently. I think that T debates can be among the most interesting, technical, and fun debates to participate in and watch. -Since I don’t know much about the topic, your “core of the topic” aff arguments will need to be better explained. It also means I’ll value evidence more highly in T debates than in other debates. -I’m much, much more persuaded by limits impacts than by ground impacts. In fact, it’s very difficult for me to foresee a debate where I vote neg solely on a ground impact. -I’ll default to competing interpretations, but reasonability is extremely winnable. Affirmatives shouldn’t have to be responsible for the very best version of the topic. Winning reasonability won’t mean the aff auto-wins, though – it just means the neg will need a more persuasive impact claim.

DAs: -Turns case arguments matter. Not all turns case arguments matter equally. Please explain if your turns case argument is offense, or only implicates solvency. -I find politics debates fun to watch, research, and think about, even though I’m split on whether the DA itself is intrinsic (see below). -I’m of the “link controls uniqueness” camp – you can never predict the future with absolute certainty.

CPs: -I won’t judge kick unless told to. -How to resolve permutations has sometimes confused me – aff burden to explain what happens if they win them. -That said, permutations are a more persuasive aff strategy against CPs that compete off certainty/immediacy than theory in front of me. I think controlling framing early on about predictable ways for counterplans to compete is a strategic way to get ahead.

Kritiks: -Toward the end of high school, I went for kritiks in most of my 2NRs. That shouldn’t mean much to you if you’re debating, though – I don’t necessarily think that the K is true or always strategic. I have particular experience with cap/security Ks, and don’t have any experience with psychoanalytic Ks. -I’ll ultimately need to answer how the kritik disproves the 1AC. Turns case, alt solves case, and reducing the credibility of the aff are all ways to do this – but link arguments alone might not do the job. -Theoretical arguments about framework are much less important/interesting to me than the substantive debate about which arguments decision-makers should prioritize.

“Non-traditional” Debate: -My senior year, I ran everything from a “hunt/kill terrorists” aff to a science-fiction aff without a plan. “Traditional policy debate is fascist” rants won’t persuade me much, but neither will hyperbolic assaults on nontraditional debate. If you’re the non-traditional one, you’re fine with me judging. If you want to go for framework, you’re still fine with me judging. -Framework notes: Ultimately, I believe having some connection to the topic is important. I also think that I got so much out of debate because I researched intensively. Both teams should discuss these topics if framework is in the 2NR. -Almost any other strategy will be more fun for me to judge than framework. -If you're doing nontraditional stuff, I'd prefer if you're doing it to have a serious discussion about issues that sometimes get ignored in traditional policy debate. I really, really don't like it when people purposefully write a meaningless 1AC to mislead people until the 2AR.

Theory: -Although theory debates are often decided on technical ability, I think overarching framing in theory debates is essential. -The theoretical legitimacy of 2 conditional advocacies is very much in question for me. I think the most persuasive aff arguments rely on contradictions. Given perfect debating from both sides, I think I’d vote aff. -I’m willing to decide CP theory is a reason to reject the team if explained well. -Even though I like the politics DA, I’m not sure it’s intrinsic. The opportunity cost model is persuasive to me. I think the best neg arguments revolve around re-characterizing the links as relevant opportunity costs to the aff as opposed to defending “politics DAs good." -As a debater, I was often frustrated by the leeway given to 2AR extrapolation in theory debates. Therefore, I’m especially likely to protect the 2NR in a theory debate. -I will not punish speaks if you go for theory over substance.