Eisenstadt,+Mike

Michael Eisenstadt University of Kansas Fifth Year Judging College Debate 4-time NDT Qualifier For questions of any kind, please E-Mail me at: m088e632@ku.edu Tournaments Judged This Season: JDI 3-Week, UMKC
 * Updated 09-07-16**

1. An interpretation - Usually in the form of a T argument. In other words, why is the aff not "[Topic Mechanism]?" What's the impact to not debating [Topic Mechanism]? The interpretation can be broader than this (e.g. Aff must have instrumental defense, engage institutions, etc.), but I think the broader your interpretation gets, the harder it is to win you have limited the aff out. It is also harder, in my mind, to win a **unique** impact that is external and therefore harder for the aff to link turn. Too often the 1NC presents an exact interpretation (Topical affs must______, supported by definitions) and then the 2NR forgets about it entirely OR shifts the interpretation and runs to the middle (a dangerous place to be for the 2NR going to for T/FW). 2. A Topical Version of the Aff AND/OR Substantive Impacts - I think of framework as the intersection between how I prioritize impacts and what the best strategy for dealing with those impacts is. So, having a "counterplan" that solves the case (and the impact turns) AND/OR an impact to your framework that turns the case seems like a good way to beat the aff. Usually the reason I vote aff in these debates is because the 2NR did not address the aff (so, you did not respond to internal links to impact turns, address impact priority arguments, etc.). Conversely, the aff should point out and capitalize on the absence of these arguments. Too often I see the 2NR focus exclusively (but without specific application) on the benefit to debating about "the State" and how we can one day have our hands on the levers of power. Sure, but in my mind "the State" isn't good or bad, individual actions "the State" takes are. Affs that frame the debate around questions of specificity (aka the topic mechanism) will find themselves ahead when the neg does not have the two things I isolated above.
 * I would like to be on the e-mail chain (m088e632@ku.edu). I will not read along with your speeches, but I would like to have evidence in the case that particular cards are disputed in cross-x and to make reading them after the debate concludes quicker.**
 * An important meta-theoretical note**: I believe in a 'healthy diet' of persuasion. This means your speech act must perform the functions of ethos, pathos, and logos. If you are reading this and have no previous experience with the terms, please stop here and go look them up. You are not simply a logician, you are an orator. Debates are won by important communicative moments. Whether they are fast, slow, passionate, or hilarious, they must happen. I believe Will Repko calls these "Moments of Connection." Reading into your computer screen with no emphasis or clarity is a surefire way to earn a 27, and those would be generous points in that case.
 * Debate is a communicative activity**. This means that to win an argument a) I have to understand it and b) I have to hear it clearly enough to know it was there. At the end of the round, if we have a disagreement about something, usually a failure to achieve those requirements will be my explanation. Reading directly into your computer during your speeches with no attempt at eye contact is a surefire way to miscommunicate.
 * I am deeply concerned about the trend of evidence quality in debate**. Too often I think teams read evidence that either fails to make a warranted claim OR that is GOOD evidence but highlighted into oblivion. The problem is that debaters constantly forget or do not think to make this a part of their response to an argument. For example, I have seen several times the tagline "Econ Decline Causes War - Studies Prove - Royal 10" and the debater reads lines from the card that say "militaries fabricate external conflicts to create a rally-around-the-flag effect" but does not cite the studies in the evidence. The card is extended as "Studies prove our argument," but again this is as deep as that discussion gets. I think that a team who reads fewer, better (read: warranted) cards and sets the bar high for their opponents has a much better chance of winning their nexus/framing arguments.
 * Framework:** I think the negative needs to have 2 core arguments in a 2NR that goes for "Gotta have a plan."
 * One other important note:** I will vote for the team who I found to do the better debating. This means if your framing argument is "your ballot is political because _______" and I vote for you, my ballot is **NOT** necessarily an endorsement of that politics. Rather, it means you won your impact prioritization and did the better debating, nothing more, nothing less.

1) I was trained under the “debates are won in the off-season” mentality. Demonstration of hard work, intensive research, and deep subject knowledge (particularly on the case) will be well-rewarded. 2) Things I frequently went for in the 2NR: Politics/Case, Politics/CP, T, and the S&M K. 3) "I don't want to preside over accusations about what has or hasn't happened outside of the round I'm currently judging." -Matt Jallits That being said, you can do you in front of me. Make whatever arguments you’d like but do so taking the following proclivities in mind:
 * Things you may want to know about me**:


 * Topicality**- It’s a voting issue, BUT I do not believe affirmatives are instantly K.O.'d because I value competing interpretations. If you successfully defend your interpretation is net better and win offense to the negative interpretation, you have still won the debate. Reasonability only makes sense to me if you define it for me (e.g. debatability vs. literature).

a) Slow down on the reading of the counterplan text b) Establish competition or at least read a card
 * Counterplans**- If I don’t know what your counterplan does after the cross-x of the 1NC, I will have difficulty being compelled by it later because the aff will have the opportunity to clarify its meaning first. This means:

“Perm: Do the Counterplan” is best articulated by the aff in conjunction with a theory argument. It is more often a reason to reject the argument than it is to reject the team. Conditionality: Cool with 2, after that this is entirely fair game. I would still vote on conditionality if they read 2, but very uphill battle. Hey, sometimes ya gotta throw a hail mary. Just don't do it when you don't need to. (Uniform) 50 States: Neutral on this question, can be persuaded either way. Process: Case-by-case basis; solvency advocate and theoretical justifications both play a role in deciding on these Cheap Shots: Not likely, but if the other team persists on ignoring them, by all means.
 * Theory**-

"I'm ambivalent about the 'truth' of almost every argument, and I enjoy good debate no matter its substantive or ideological leaning. Unsurprisingly, I've seen both sides of the ideological spectrum debated superbly at times and miserably at other times, and I am far more concerned with judging whether or not you make your arguments well than where you fit along some pre-ordained spectrum of K---Policy. How I evaluate these debates depends entirely on how good you are, and has little to do with how leftist or right-wing you are. As utterly obvious as this is to me, somehow I think it gets lost in the mad dash for teams to stack their strike sheets with people they think are ideologically congruent with their preferences. But in case you're wondering, I went for everything as a debater." -Josh Branson
 * The K**- I found this on Chris Crowe's judge philosophy page (citing Josh Branson) and I agree with the following about how I interpret and decide these debates:

1. I am in the camp that believes one A+ card can defeat ten D- cards. 2. I am also in the camp that a C- card with A+ spin can beat a B+ card with none. 3. Competing interpretations is my default. I can be convinced otherwise, however. 4. Policymaking is also my default. Much like competing interpretations, I can be convinced otherwise. 5. Condo- good unless more than 2, the more you read than 2, the more sympathetic I get for the aff. 6. I am much more likely to vote neg on "gotta have a plan" than voting aff on "you don't get an alt, it's a voter." 7. You can likely tell what my reaction is to your argument by my facial expression or nods (I don't have a very good poker face for living in Las Vegas). Use this to your advantage, especially during your opponents speeches. 8. Cross-X is important. I may write things down during it. I will definitely be paying attention. 9. An argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. If your 'argument' lacks one of those three things, then it is not an 'argument.' 10. Paperless- prep stops when you have saved your speech to a flash drive. Jumping to the other team does not count as prep, but super inefficient paperless debating will impact your speaker points AND my ability to thoroughly examine the debate before the decision deadline. 11. "The Status Quo is always a logical option" means the 2NR is not committed to the counterplan they go for **if and only if** they **SAY SO** in the 2NC and/or 2NR, otherwise I will not kick a CP for you to test the status quo 12. The case debate is a lost art. Revive it and execute it well and you will be handsomely rewarded. 13. Framework debates are won by the team who better engaged their opponents substance and primary offense. This is true whether it is being extended as an impact or a voter. 14. 'More Evidence' does not constitute a tag or an argument - I will be grumpy if you read 5 terrible uniqueness cards that are tagged 'more evidence,' just say the warrant.
 * Other FYIs you may be interested in**: