Carey,+Chris


 * Chris Carey**


 * updated for Blue Valley North 2015

4 Years @ Shawnee Mission East High School, KS Senior Debating @ the University of Kansas Speaker Positions: 2A/1N; former 2N/1A Rounds Judged on the Surveillance topic: roughly 20 camp debates @ the Jayhawk Debate Institute Email: chriscarey188@gmail.com

__General Thoughts to help win my ballot__: 1) My knowledge of this topic is somewhat limited - the research I did over the summer involved something called XO 12333, reprocessing prez power cards, and complaining frequently with Madison Cook about how every debate on this topic is "a terrible advantage vs a terrible terror da". 2) Send me speech docs please. I do this for two reasons: a) to read evidence during debates b) to prevent clipping. Clipping occurs whenever a team skips highlighted portions of evidence or fails to mark evidence before they more on. If I catch you clipping, you will receive zero speakers and lose the debate. Don't do it. 3) I will try my hardest to evaluate the debate, you should try your hardest to win the debate.

__Topicality__: Good arg. I love judging T debate. Both teams should weigh the disads to both interpretations. Standards on T debates are usually some form predictable limits, impacted by fairness and education. Too many times in high school debates, 1AR and 2AR’s do a poor job of extending reasonability. Saying “good is good enough” is not an argument. You need to give reasons why reasonability is preferable to competing interpretations.

__Topicality on the surveillance topic__: see 'general thoughts' number 1. Haven't done a ton of topic research. That being said, it seems the core T questions on this topic concern 1) 'domestic surveillance' - does it mean US persons, defined by geography, etc. This seems to have significant implications for advantage areas and negative ground; 2) 'curtail' - reduce vs restrict seems like an important distinction.

__Case__: These debates are awesome but underutilized. If you can minimize the risk of the aff it will massively increase your chances of winning the disad. It is also probably a good idea to extend case defense even if you are going for the CP. **Also, impact turns are super fun and you should read them sometimes.**

__Disads__: DA's were in most of my 2NR’s in high school and are an essential part of the negative strategy. The 2NR should do impact calc and make turns case arguments.

__Politics__: This is probably my favorite argument in debate. Here are a couple hints that will help you pick up my ballot on the politics DA. 1) Spin is crucial. How you spin your uniqueness and link evidence will determine how I read cards after the debate 2) Don’t read terrible politics disads. I know that every couple years someone decides to write ONE uniqueness card for Law of the Sea but that doesn’t mean you should read it in a debate round. 3) I think the politics disad is intrinsic to the affirmative but a dropped argument with a claim and a warrant is a true argument so if the neg drops it, go for it.

__Counterplans__: I generally think that CP’s should be textually and functionally competitive but feel free to tell me otherwise. I tend to lean negative on theory and think that most objections are reasons to reject the argument not the team.

__Kritik’s__: Not my favorite argument but I am certainly willing to listen to them. I rarely went for the K in high school almost never took it in the 2NC. I find K's with specific links to the aff more compelling than a generic Security K. I tend to evaluate these debates like a disad and a counterplan. Aff tips: answer meta framing questions about methodology and impact framing. "K's are cheating" is not argument. Neg tips: tell me how to evaluate the aff's impacts and give specific links to the aff.

__Paperless__: Prep stops when you are done prepping and ready to save your speech to the flashdrive. That being said, you should be ready to give an order and start talking after you hand them the flash drive. That means you have your flows and speech doc in order and are ready to start talking.

Speaker points: here are some things that will both increase and decrease your points when I am judging the debate

__ Increase Points: __ 1. bold decisions 2. funny jokes 3. technical proficiency 4. good strategy

__Decrease Points:__ 1. dropping arguments 2. incorrectly identifying a dropped argument 2. unfunny jokes 3. disrespect towards your opponent 4. offensive language

__Things High Schoolers Do That Annoy Me:__ 1. Flowing off the speech doc, then answering cards that weren't read, etc 2. Reading cards in random places for no apparent reason 3. Responding to blippy 2ac theory args without a warrant (e.g., "no neg fiat, voting issue") FOR FORTY FIVE SECONDS!!! 4. Reading un-highlighted cards.