Haynes,+Campbell

Montgomery Bell Academy, 2006-2010 Dartmouth College, 2010-2014

I've only judged a bit on this topic (at the DDI this summer) so take it easy on me at first with acronyms, etc.

Overarching points (taken from Tripp Rebrovick's philosophy):

"1. You have to convince me of an argument's merit for it to count; simply asserting something doesn't make it true.

Short version: offense/defense is a bad way of deciding debates.

Long version: Some judges think that an argument you make is true until the other side responds or rebuts it. I don't think this way -- the burden is on you to make a compelling argument before the burden of rejoinder exists.

2. At the margins, strategy outweighs tech. (N.B. – strategy, not truth).

Short version: no argument is ‘dropped’ if it is answered by an assumption or overarching meta-argument of the other side.

Long version: In close debates, in which there are no egregious errors, I find myself wanting to vote for the team that articulates a better strategic vision and communicates that they understand and have answered the nexus question than for the team that gets lucky because of a small technical issue. My propensity to resolve arguments in your favor increases as you communicate to me that you understand the importance of some arguments relative to others.

3. At the margins, debating outweighs evidence.

A caveat: This is more of a default than a principle, and I’m less sure of how I fall on this issue than for the other two. I hesitate to stray too far in favor of spin, since I think the incentives to do good research should be maximized (though, of course, better research/evidence should also create better speeches). If told to, I could probably be persuaded to place a higher premium on better and more qualified evidence."

I started writing a long rant contextualizing all of the three above points, randomly started reading other judge philosophies, and fortuitously realized Tripp had said what I wanted to say far better than I ever could.

Some other notes that will probably be important for you:

I think limits are very important on any topic and usually default to competing interpretations. Ground arguments are dumb and generally circular. That being said, I ran an aff everyone decided wasn't topical my senior year of HS and enjoyed that reasonability debate immensely. As such, I can be a bit of a sucker for those arguments if debated well.

Conditionality is fine with me, as long as you're not throwing 6 or 7 advocacies out there. I'm less accepting of the States CP; I understand and enjoy both sides of this debate, but generally think it's not good for debate.

I love case/DA debates. Or aff teams that can debate the case well. As point 3 notes above, smart analytical arguments are favorites of mine. Many crappy advantages can be decimated by a savvy reading of their own evidence and smart analytical arguments thrown into the 1NC.I was all about the warming/heg/econ debate in high school and probably still am. Impact turning everything on the negative is also sweet. I frequently impact turned Heg and think that's a very fun debate.

I've been surprised by how much I enjoy some K debates given that I rarely went for them as a debater. That being said, I'll always enjoy K debates that actively engage/turn the affirmative to nonsensical jargon.

Specific PICs are dope. Stupid word PICs, etc are not.

Everything but Conditionality is a reason to reject the argument.

Be funny. Don't try to be funny if you aren't. Make references to sports/pop culture/music/Eric Berry/why people I know are stupid. I will enjoy that.

Last pet peeve: start off your speech slow. I've always hated people that start off a 1NC blistering through an unintelligible T shell.