Konrad,+Joey


 * __Experience__**: I debated at Broad Run High School for 4 years, and attended the TOC my senior year. I am now a freshman and varsity debater at James Madison University.

If you only have a few seconds to look this wiki over, then the most important thing you should see is __**do whatever you are comfortable with and impact out everything**__. Every judge has some bias in which arguments they find persuasive or not, but I think it’s a judges responsibility to limit their bias and judge the debate in front of them. That being said, your argument should have clear links and impacts, or why it matters for me to evaluate it. Even if it’s a small voting issue or larger warrant, do not forget to impact it out. **Dropped arguments are true arguments IF impacted.**

My philosophy on Debate closely models Shree Awsare’s, so I will be borrowing from his philosophy and it would also be valuable to check it out if I am judging you. Ill highlight some important things here from his philosophy: “- **__Do what you're good at __**. I'm not a blank canvas, but my proclivities about debate change as a result of specific things that I see or am compelled by within particular debates. As a result, I don't have a huge distaste towards particular genres of argument-I am much more interested in how you execute your position(s). - **__Strategy > Truth__**. Stupid arguments like "counterinterp: only our case is topical," OSPEC, word PICs, time cube, and the lizard people are not encouraged, but I am firmly on the boat that if you can't beat a stupid argument, you don't deserve to win. Whether or not reading these arguments will adversely affect your speaker points is up to how well I thought the position was executed. - **__Assume that I have not read your literature base __**. You should not expect me to know every acronym or all the latest developments in your DA scenario, nor should you assume that I understand all of the jargon in your K. Err on the side of (at least) briefly explaining a concept before jumping into the intricacies of your argument.”

Specifics:

__**Topicality**__: I will default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. Even then I find debate in general should center around competing interpretations, so you will have to be very persuasive to get me to vote on reasonability. I really enjoy T debates, and if you plan to go for T you should have a clear vision of what the topic should look like, what your interpretation allows/prohibits, and why that is beneficial. RVI’s make me sad L

__**Framework**__: Most of my senior year I read an aff without a plan text, and I am still convinced framework can be the most strategic argument to read against a kritikal/performance aff. If you are going for framework, you will lose the debate very quickly if you do not win the access question kritikal teams will make (i.e. certain group cannot access politics). This debate is also about competing interpretations and how debate should look like, so big picture framing is very helpful for me as a judge in evaluating where on framework you are winning and why it matters. I do not find “people quit” a persuasive impact at all, and I furthermore believe education is the only impact to framework and fairness is an internal link to education, but I can be convinced otherwise.

__**Kritiks**__: K debates are fantastic when they are specific. I'm generally familiar with kritikal literature bases, but don't assume i know the nuances or jargon of your K. A lot of debaters forget about the impact to a K and spend so much time on the link work, any 2a can stand up and easily win the debate with case outweighs, so as a model for debating the K in front of me, every time you isolate a link to the aff, either through cards or one you have thought up, there should always be an impact following that link and then how your resolve that link. Specific K work helps speaker points and makes it a lot harder for the Aff to win on “K’s greatest hits” type arguments. If the K is not a floating pik, then you should probably talk about case, or else you probably lose the debate. For the aff: while a lot of debaters spend a long time on the link level, I still find that invested no link arguments to be persuasive and winnable.

__**Disads**__: for the aff: I find that “no link” arguments are forgotten/not used as much as they should be. I will vote on damning defense, but you should probably have some offense in the 2ar or else it makes the debate way more difficult. For the neg, if you do not also go for case you will most likely lose the debate. Politics theory has never been persuasive and i will only vote on it if dropped. impact framing is very important, especially if the 2nr plans to go for da/case.

__**Counterplans**__: Slow down on the CP text please. Net Benefit, either internal or external, should be clear, impacted out, and proven why you resolve it. The CP should probably have a solvency advocate. Specifc CP's are always better than generic Delay/Consult ones. I will judge kick unless explicitly told not to do so.

__**Policy Case:**__ Aff, do not assume your case is generally true and you can blow over case arguments, that is the quickest way to lose a debate. Neg: case debate is so under-utilized and it is the best way to boost any offcase you have and helps your speaker points when you point out they know nothing about their aff. I am willing to vote on presumption, as I went for presumption

__**Kritikal Case**__: By the end of the 1ac, you should have an explicit impact and clear method of how you resolve it. Try to avoid jargon in your explanation, it helps speaker points and makes it easier to win solvency debates. Neg: if teams attacking policy case is under-used, it is practically non-existent with kritikal affs. Please please please engage the case, and that does not mean read a single “state engagement good” card, but talk about their method and rip it apart, its usually not legitimate and makes the debate more valuable educationally.

__**Presumption**__: I am willing to vote on a 0% risk of solvency, or terminal defense on a DA, or a kritikal aff not meeting its role of the ballot if its well thought out and invested in. "1% risk" are never persuasive unless you prove it mitigates your claims, not takes it out, which requires invested time into solvency/internals.

__**Theory**__: I'm middle of the road on Condo, and can be persuaded either way, but I do think the neg gets 1 CP and 1 K. Any other theory violation is most likely a "reject the argument" style, as I find it very difficult to vote aff solely on the reason that the neg read a consult cp. aff please put some thought into your 2ac condo shells, old standards like “time skew” and “strat skew” is not persuasive anymore, believe it or not there are other, more persuasive reasons as to why reading 13 offcase is a bad idea. Model these debates like T debates, have a clear interpretation of how we should debate, and most important impact it out.

__**Cross Ex:**__ I love cross ex. To me it serves as a gauge to how the debate is going, who is on the ball and who has smart strategy. If you do not have a thought out or effortful cross ex, do not expect awesome speaks from me.

__**Speed:**__ Spreading is fine. If you are unclear, I will say clear once or twice and if you do not improve do not expect me to have every argument you made flowed well.

__**Speaker Points:**__ From Shree Awsares’ philosophy: “Largely subjective, but I will generally stick to what's outlined below (in the open division). Things that may influence speaker points include (but are not limited to): clarity, stealing prep, being excessively mean, humor, the strength of your CX

< 25: You really got on my nerves and you deserve an equally obnoxious number on the 0-25 part of the scale

25: You showed up but didn't really make an argument past the 1AC/1NC, and didn't ever acknowledge the fact that there were opponents making arguments in your speech

26: You showed up and made some claims (mostly without warrants) that occasionally clashed with your opponents

27: You made a variety of claims in the debate (some backed up with warrants) but had a variety of severe strategic mishaps and/or failed to impact your claims

28: You made a variety of claims in the debate (most of them backed up with warrants), but you were occasionally playing with fire and had questionable strategic maneuvers

28.5: You are solid. Your claims are backed up with warrants and you have a strategic vision that you are attempting to accomplish.

29-29.9: You've done everything needed for a 28.5, but you sounded really, really good while you were doing it. This probably includes: you had excellent ethos/pathos, you were incredibly clear, you were hilarious (or if you aren't funny, you somehow connected with me as a judge and made me want to care), and your strategic vision was executed nearly flawlessly.

30: Life changed. “

Finally, it should go without saying that if you say anything offensive/degrading to the other team I will give you 0 speaker points. Debate is an educational and fun activity, not a space where people come to be marginalized.

Please ask me questions if my rambling here is confusing, and have fun!