Pavur,+James

I am currently a sophomore at Georgetown. I debated for 7 years total from the 2007 Africa topic to the 2013 War Powers Authority topic.

**If you don't trust judge philosophies -** [|here's]my voting history starting at Woodward 2013, interpret it as you please.

"It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness; that is life." - [|Picard]
 * Something that I think it would be good for debaters to realize and keep in mind when debating in front of me:**

1) I will try to put as much effort into delivering the correct decision as I know you do into each debate.
 * A few guiding principles: **

2) I think that speaker points are separate from the RFD. For example, if you lose a debate on account of having bad cards but have delivered a winning speech you will likely get higher speaks than someone who delivers a low-quality speech that wins on the basis of a technical drop. In practice, the best debaters are also the best at winning debates but I will assign speaks before I even begin to decide the round. I normally assign the negative team's speaks immediately following the 2NR. The result is that I probably give more low-point wins than most judges, if you get a low point win it doesn't mean you spoke poorly, just that the other team spoke well.

3) Do what you do best. I am a policy debater but that has little to no bearing on how I will evaluate a debate. If your thing is critical theory / spoken word poetry / ASPEC don’t hesitate to roll with it. That said, ‘stupid’ arguments are also easier to beat and harder to extend well. This means that, when you win a debate on ASPEC/Timecube your speaks are likely to be lower than winning on a well-developed kritik or policy strat.

4) If you think I made the wrong decision or are concerned about how I evaluated something, please ask about it. I won’t be offended and, even if I am, I won’t remember you the next time I judge you. I’m still pretty new to judging and am as concerned about becoming a better judge as you are concerned about being a better debater.

If you know the 4 things above you are probably good for this debate – if you are interested in random opinions / mostly irrelevant advice – keep reading.


 * Case** – A neg team can win zero risk of an advantage. Good advantages have credible internal links with warrants that are explained at some point in the debate. Given no impact framing, I usually default to magnitude but I can be convinced relatively easy that probability/systemic impacts or even smaller-scale war impacts that are more likely outweigh. Zero risk of all the advantages = neg on presumption. Inherency and squo solves arguments are evaluated in pretty much the same way, if the aff is happening to a sufficient degree in the status quo I will vote negative even if an increase is ‘possible.’


 * DAs** – An aff team can win zero risk of a disad. Many of the same criteria for case advantages apply here. I have no idea why uniqueness controls the direction of the link but if you make up a better lie than the other team has answers, I’ll trust you on it. The best DA links are aff specific. The best DA answers are also aff specific.


 * Real CPs** – Best CPs have solid aff-specific solvency advocates and a clear net-benefit. That said, not having solvency advocates is not a reason that a CP is cheating, just a reason the CP is as credible as the opinions of the highschool debater who wrote it, if you can explain why the CP solves and couch that explanation in Aff solvency/internal link arguments I’m unlikely to reject the CP just because it is so obvious that no one has written a card on it yet. If you are aff and are smart enough to think of answers to a CP without a solvency advocate then you are going to be fine.


 * Process CPs** – underrated because they are rarely run well. If you can answer the perm well – ideally with evidence specific to the CP instead of just definitions in the resolution – these are as credible as other CPs to me.


 * Kritiks** – I like good K debates but my definition of ‘good’ sets a pretty high bar. Make the K about the aff if you can, win alt solvency or explain why framework means you don’t have to have an alternative. If you are one of those people who reads a bunch of satellite Ks in the block – you can’t just read mistagged Chernus cards, you also need to make arguments as to how rejecting whatever particular aspect of the 1AC you isolated in the 1NC shell is able to resolve these satellite issues as well. I’d love to see aff teams against the K that actually attack the alt and impact level of the K – most Ks are just a bunch of radically out of context quotes from authors who would disapprove of the way their arguments are being used in a debate. Very few people think that just rejecting the idea of something bad is sufficient to fix a problem. Lots of people think that the world is pretty good right now and that radical reforms might mess things up – these arguments are more persuasive than just a bunch of cede the political + reps not first cards. One last thing: if you read an aff that is kritikable, don’t try to shift away from the link – a strong defense of realism or hegemony is better than arguing that your Kagan card doesn’t really securitize that much.


 * Topicality** – I went for T almost 50% of my 2NCs last year and was 11-0 on stupid T violations like “development” = commercial. I will happily pull the trigger on a T violation if it is debated well, even against a “topical” aff that mishandles it. External impacts and dedicating serious time to the C/I debate both seem necessary to me. Affirmative teams – reasonability is good but it requires you to also extend a counter-interpretation, arguments about why the education provided by your aff/genere of aff is uniquely important are persuasive. Aff predictability is, in my opinion, an argument that can be spun offensively – most people would likely disagree with me on that point though so if I’m on a panel don’t hedge your bets on aff predictability. ASPEC/OSPEC/ReSPECt are fine, but please do the work to win it.


 * Theory** – I try not to lean any way on theory. If you can explain it and debate it well, I will vote on it. A cheating counterplan, a cheating permutation etc. may be a reason to reject the team but you need to explain how it impacted other parts of the debate. Justify new arguments if you make them – as a 2N I feel inclined to protect the 2NR when a 2AR explodes on condo but if you can point to parts of the 1AR/2NR that justify your new arguments – go ahead and make them. If you have to choose between making a new argument and losing the debate, make a new argument – I’m not a great flow so I might just trust you on it.


 * Non-traditional debate** – From my experience teams that do not debate the resolution tend to do poorly in front of me. I'd like to believe any debate is winnable in front of me but I have only ever voted for non-traditional teams in cases where the other team made a mistake, never in the case where the debate has been remotely close. This may be because I find the arguments in favor of not defending topical policies somewhat banal and thoroughly unpersuasive. If this does not deter you from reading your non-traditional aff go with it - maybe you'll make me reconsider my habits - but empirically I'm not the person you'd want in the back of the room for one of these debates.

Two options - the teams can agree to whichever one they prefer - if you all don't tell me which I will default to the first one: a) Prep stops when you say "stop prep" - you are expected to quickly save the file to a flashdrive and deliver it to the other team - egregious stealing of prep will result in a loss and/or reduced speaker points. b) Prep stops when you remove the flashdrive from the computer but both teams get an extra minute of prep to adjust for time lost flashing - if your are competent this is obviously the better model - this doesn't apply at tournaments with 10 minutes of prep or tournaments with strict rules regarding prep.
 * Paperless -**


 * Other stuff –**

Dropped arguments are only relevant to the extent that a team can explain why a drop should impact my decision. If you drop an argument – answer it in the next speech make a ton of cross applications, read an add-on that also impact turns it, do whatever you have to do – even if the debate is unwinnable, fighting the good fight will improve your speaks.

Being mean/offensive won’t cost you the debate, but it will cost you speaker points.

Clipping or otherwise cheating egregiously will result in the lowest permissible speaker points and a loss. Don't accuse someone of clipping unless you are absolutely sure they are - if you turn out to be wrong after making the accusation you will receive the lowest permissible speaker points and a loss.

media type="custom" key="23946764"