Leis,+Nico

=**Varsity High School Debater **=
 * Cambridge High School (Milton, GA) **
 * Email – nicoleis8383@gmail.com **

Last Updated — 3/20/15

"Please have fun. Debate is good because we love it" - Maggie Berthiaume

Since I am new to judging (this is my first year), I think it might be more helpful for me to outline the two people who have had a profound influence on the way that I debate, the way that I carry myself in the debate community, and the way that I will strive to judge.
 * Influences: **


 * [These two influences are basically the short version of my judging philosophy].**

1. **__Tucker Boyce__** - http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Boyce%2C+Tucker — Former debater at Alpharetta HS (GA) and current debater at UGA. It might be more useful to read Tucker’s judging philosophy than it is to read mine, and if you do so, you will certainly notice many similarities between mine and his. Tucker essentially created me as a debater, and he is the only reason why I continued debating after my first year. His judging style is essentially this: “**You should read arguments you're most comfortable with and feel free to debate in whatever style you like, just do it well. Aff and strategy choice matter much less than the skills you use to execute arguments. Trickery and sketchiness are __never__ a replacement for good strategy and coherent argumentation, no matter what arguments you choose to read.”** I hope that I can be as objective about my decisions as Tucker is able to be, but I’m certainly going to make a huge effort to eschew all preconceived dispositions for or against any given argument, and use whatever is presented to me **during the debate** as the basis of my decision. Lastly, Tucker has taught me THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN DEBATE: ** be nice **.

2. **__Nick Miller__** – This has less to do with Nick’s style of judging, and more to do with his style of debating. I try to emulate this as much as I can, and I think that the way Nick debates is the way that everyone should debate. Nick is one of the most persuasive speakers I’ve ever heard in policy debate, and his obsession with ethos should be modelled by the entire debate community. When I’m judging a debate, I want to be **__persuaded__**. Some tips: look up during speeches and make regular eye contact, use humor if appropriate, don’t rely too much on your cards – effective explanation is always more important, and lastly, don’t sacrifice clarity for speed (or the perception of speed). Here are some Nick Miller quotes which illustrate how you should strive to debate: -“Eye-contact can get baboons laid, and it can win you debates.” -“The ability to bullshit… we’ll call that persuasive speaking.” -“Your evidence is a pogo stick, not a crutch.”


 * Overview: **

1. __Be Nice__ - this is really important to me - high school debate is a community because of the great people in it, and you should reflect that in how you carry yourself in and outside of debates. Being slightly aggressive about arguments and in CX is fine, there's a line. 2. __Debate how you want to debate__ - it doesn't matter what the arguments are, what matters is how you frame them and explain them. As a judge I believe my job is to evaluate the arguments debaters would like to discuss. I try to be as clean-slate as possible, with some specific preferences discussed below. 3. __Framing is key__ - creative and concise 2NR/2AR framings will be rewarded. Clear explanations and comparisons are necessary. The best rebuttals go beyond simple impact calc and form a more cohesive strategic approach. 4. __Explanation is often more important than what the card says__ - what matters is how you explain it and compare the evidence. I'm less likely to call for cards if the 2NR/2AR explanation is just a tag. If I deem that evidence does need to be called, then I'm going to give more weight to the arguments actually made during the speech on that particular part of the debate. I'm not a fan of calling up tons of evidence and reading into it more than was done in the speeches. 5. __Be interesting__ - I believe the best debaters have developed a sense of what they're good at, no matter what that is, and use it to their advantage. 6. __Flashing__ - **I DO take prep for flashing – prep time stops when the flash drive leaves the computer.** If you’re using the Verbatim macro, it should take you exactly 0 seconds to save the speech onto the flash drive, all because the great Aaron Hardy created a little button that looks like this:. Additionally, I will keep track of how long it takes for the non-speaking team to pull up the document on their computer. If it goes over 3 minutes before any given speech, I will start that team’s prep time.


 * Marking Evidence: **

If you mark a card during a speech, you need to __physically mark it__ in the document. You should have a marked version available if the opponent requests. If I call up evidence, please __check to see that you have marked it appropriately in the document you give to me__. If I end up calling up a card and have written on my flow that it was marked, and you did not mark it, I will subtract speaker points from the speaker who read the card.


 * Cross-Examination: **

- Here’s a quote from Nick Millers judge philosophy – “I fucking love cross-ex” - I will flow cross-ex to record finer details and distinctions with arguments - I will always be giving you my full attention during cross-ex, cross-ex is a speech! - Use cross-ex to record finer details and distinctions with certain types of arguments. Please use time asking focused, narrow strategic questions rather than just a list of "point me a line..." kind of questions.


 * Disadvantages: **

- Clear impact comparison, DA interaction with the case, and 'link controls' or 'uniqueness controls' all should be explained in the context of the round and not generically- Ideal Neg blocks should indict 2AC evidence on multiple levels - The negative should extend a brief and concise explanation of their DA throughout the debate, even if certain parts of it are not contested. (This will help you on an ethos/points level). - Specific disadvantages coupled with counterplans are some of the most effective kinds of negative strategies. If you have a strategy like this prepped, you should certainly utilize it.


 * Critiques: **

- I have a decent amount of exposure to kritikal arguments, but that should not matter. Whether I have prior knowledge of the intricacies of your argument or not should be made irrelevant by effective, clear, persuasive, and explanatory argumentation. Buzzwords will only hold up if you define and explain them before using them as a crutch. - Specific link work is a must, and it's great if you could link cards in the 1AC or specific actions of the Aff within the K. - Every link should have an impact. A link is only “a disad to the permutation” if it is actually spun as an offensive argument. Additionally, every link should include an explanation of the way the alt solves. - You should have 2-4 link arguments max. I would much rather see a debate where there are two very well developed links with impacts and alt solvency args than a debate that lists off 8 one-line links args. -The farther from the topic your critique is, and the less specific to the affirmative it is, the longer you are going to have to spend articulating a strong link. - Aff – be careful with framework/role of the ballot. The negative will almost always have better cards than you, simply because of the way the lit breaks down. If the negative does a good job of explaining it, framework/role of the ballot can become a prior issue to the affirmative, and you can essentially lose all 8 minutes of your 1AC. If the neg is making it threatening, be sure to spend enough time here throughout the debate to ensure that you don’t lose access to your 1AC. - Framing is really important here - don't just go for a bunch of tricks, tell me what they all mean in context of the Aff.- On the Aff, it is important to think of the broader 2AR strategy vs. the K rather than a collection of loosely connected arguments. I find that often the 1AR extends many arguments without development rather than developing a cohesive 2AR set-up - this can be changed by planning the overall strategy vs. the K before the 1AR even starts.


 * CP: **

- I will be honest here – as hard as I’ll try to make sure I do a good job of evaluating your debate, I often get confused when listening to negatives debating counterplans. I’m not sure if this is me or the negatives teams I’ve been watching. In no way I am saying that counterplans are bad in front of me, because I love them, but you may have to be more explicit in your explanation of the counterplan than you normally would be. - Well-written and specific CP's are great. The more theoretically questionable the CP is, the better the solvency advocate should be. Affs should utilize theory against CP's that do the whole Aff with specific abuse claims. -I will give the affirmative some leeway on the theory debate versus a sketchy counterplan in the 1AR. I don’t think the strategy of drawing fire from the 2AC on the theory debate and then shooting the aff down by spending 5 minutes on theory in the block is necessarily good for debate. [This is not synonymous to saying that I think these CPs in and of themselves are bad for debate]. You can certainly do it, but don’t expect to me to throw out the entire 2AR for being new if the 1AR doesn’t answer each of your 17 subpoints individually. - Explain what sufficiency vs. necessary framing etc. are in the context of the round. - I will not "Judge-Kick" the Counterplan for the Negative unless: A.) It is specifically said and justified - but that does not mean saying "you can kick this if you don't like it" B.) There is comparative impact analysis on this question of the debate


 * Case: **

- __Love__ well-developed case debates. - The Neg increasingly just reads impact defense now. It's so much more than that - multiple levels of defense, indicts of 1AC evidence, re-reading of their evidence, and recent evidence will be rewarded. I will reward Neg blocks that spend a lot of time on case defense. 1AR's should collapse down in these scenarios to extend and explain their best offense. Affs that are able to articulate cohesive warrants in response to impact defense arguments. The Aff should use CX to point out the generic nature of their arguments if the Neg is just reading impact defense. - __Impact Turns__ – impact turn debates are some of my favorite debates to watch/judge. I love a good strategic impact turn that gets a strong time trade-off. If you’re impact turning just of the hell of impact turning, while not actually getting a good return on your investment, then you’re probably not doing it right. If you’re impact turning correctly, however, you should either be getting a huge time tradeoff with the other side or a viable 2NR option that is severely under covered. - 1AR impact turns are sick (if they get you somewhere). i.e. Don’t do it if you have a conceded case impact coming out of the block.


 * Topicality: **

- Keep it clean. Most high school T debates end up completely throwing out the 2AC order. Compartmentalize the T flow into separate debates (we meet, counter interp, limits, reasonability, etc) - The Aff should have unique offense and try to provide examples of various Affs that do and don't fit their interp. 1AR/2AR has to isolate that offense and impact it. - Well-impacted rebuttals are key, including comparison of offense and not just generic "limits! fairness!" discussion


 * Non-Traditional Arguments: **

- Fine with all of them, although if I had a favorite type of these, it's Affs that have a stronger connection to oceans/ocean policy/the topic broadly. - Comparisons are key, couching your arguments in the method and framing of your opponent's. The role of the ballot and the impacts need to be explained in context of the debate. - I am not as familiar with a lot of this literature, so explanation of more complex arguments is important. As long as the explanation is clear and complex topics are explained sufficiently, it is fine. It should make intuitive sense that an aff grounded in more complex arguments would take more explanation than a slew of undefined buzzwords. This goes right back to my explanation of the importance of persuasion.


 * T – United States Federal Government [Not “framework”]: **

- Is framework a viable 2NR in front of me? Yes, definitely, as long as you debate it well (just like anything else). Is going for impact turns vs. framework on the Aff viable? Yes, of course. - Aff-specific: Clear impact calculus and interaction of arguments with the content of the Affirmative vs. Framework is also important, especially when going for "Aff outweighs" style of argument - Neg-specific: Generic block-reading is not persuasive; framework should be contextualized to the specifics of the Aff, and you should use clear examples, grounding impact claims with anticipation of the Aff's final offense.
 * -** I'm fine with anything executed well. I judge framework debates based on technical arguments and framing that happened in the debate.


 * Theory: **

- There needs to be a clear impact and abuse story if it's an issue to reject the team. - Perm theory and blippy 2AC arguments probably aren't reasons to reject the team, but could be argued as such hypothetically with an abuse story - In order for it to be an argument, it must have a warrant when it is introduced. - Condo needs to be well-warranted in the 1AR to set up 2AR offense properly; otherwise I'm likely to dismiss brand new arguments. - Slow down on the theory debate. I know that you’re reading a block. I know that block is on your computer. I know that this gives you the opportunity to read it as fast as you would read a card. Don’t do it. Slow down to the speed you talk at when you are reading off of your flow, otherwise I (and most judges) will miss stuff.


 * Points: **

- **Being nice will positively affect points, being mean will negatively affect points.** - Good execution of arguments/impact calculus/structure are very important for speaks. - Other things are also important, like having a unique style, executing one area of argumentation particularly well, etc. - Unnecessary trickery and sketchiness in argumentation, whether it's spiking out of offense that actually links, excessive blippy theory arguments, etc. will negatively affect points. - If you’ve read the rest of this page, you’ll know some things (mainly behavioral things – how you conduct yourself) from some other sections that I particularly like and dislike.


 * Speaker Points: **

29.7-30.0 - one of the best performances I am likely to hear for a long time. 29.4-29.6 - a fantastic performance and I think that you should be top speaker at the tournament. 29.0-29.3 - an excellent performance and you should place in the top-ten at the tournament. 28.0-28.9 - a good performance and you should be in contention for a speaker award. 27.5-27.9 - an average performance. 27.0-27.4 - a below average performance. 26.0-26.9 - a well below average performance. needs to work a lot in order to be competitive. Below 26.0 - You offended me in some way.

I will assign a 0 for a debater proven to be clipping cards or in violation of some other ethics rule. If you believe that your opponent has clipped evidence, you need to provide me with a recording of the speech for review. The debate will be stopped, and it is all-or-nothing because it is a serious ethics challenge. If needed, consultation with the tab room for specific tournament rules will take place, but there must be a recording.


 * General Tips: **

- Always be nice to the other team. Don’t be a jerk in cross ex. - Don’t waive cross-ex, it’s never a good practice. - Make jokes. The more specific they are, the better. This has to do with ethos and persuasion. Don’t, however, be inappropriate or mean with your jokes. - Take notes on the RFD (and all other RFDs, and then compile them into one document). Couple reasons: (1) You can go back and look at all of your round's judge comments to see how a judge liked certain arguments, etc (2) Especially for novice debate, I feel a very strong impulse to share as much information with younger debaters as I can. I feel indebted to those who helped me get off my feet my first year when I did not have access to any coaching at all, and I'll probably give you way more advice after the debate than you'd ever want. Some of it may be useful (probably like 1% of it), but it will only be helpful if you take notes on it.
 * - ALWAYS BE NICE TO YOUR PARTNER.** Even if you think they just gave the worst speech you’ve ever heard, you should smile and give them a high five or fist bump when they sit back down. Tell them they did a good job. You can yell at them after the debate, well after you have left my presence. I feel VERY strongly about this. I will award a substantial amount of speaker points to teams who work outstandingly well together, and will subtract a substantial amount of speaker points from teams who fight.

**Good luck! (But mainly, have fun!)**