Ehrlich-Quinn,+Clint

   Current high school coach, former high school debater (freshman year at Claremont, subsequently at Damien)   I have not yet judged any rounds on the current topic. I am posting this before Greenhill and was not at any summer institutes.  I judged about 70 rounds on the Africa topic last year.   This is my second full-year of judging high school debate.   The topicality arguments I find most persuasive are those supported by a strong literature base. I prefer to evaluate the “truth” of a T-argument, as born out by the evidence in the round, above artificial divisions of ground. Unfortunately, I rarely witness T-debates that afford me that opportunity. Instead, the NEG usually reads a terrible one-line card from a source like Dictionary.com that doesn’t remotely hint at the distinction they are trying to make. This is rarely contested by the AFF though; I find myself deciding most T debates based on poorly-developed buzz-word standards within a competing interpretation framework. I’d estimate a fairly even split between my AFF and NEG ballots in such instances.  <span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif""> <span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"">I enjoy the K when it is run well but cringe at how it is generally deployed in High School. I think it is a valuable class of argument when it includes a focus on persuasive analogies and specific analysis of the affirmative rather than an attempt to cram as much critical jargon into a speech as possible. The best K debaters manage to take incredibly sophisticated ideas and present them in such a way that they seem to make intuitive sense. <span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif""> <span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"">I have read a fair amount of K literature, though not a ton of it on the energy topic. I currently coach my teams to run almost exclusively policy arguments, but have voted NEG more than I have AFF in K debates. Time and time again AFFs let K teams get away with ludicrous frameworks that force NEG ballots out of me that I don’t want to sign. <span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif""> <span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"">It’s all about what you can defend. I personally have no interest in this style of argumentation. I believe its only true value lies in how it forces “traditional debaters” to examine the structure of the activity they participate in and, in doing so, may leave them with a deeper understanding why the conventional format is so valuable (I have a similar outlook on very extreme Ks). To further this process of critical thinking, I feel it is important to make the debates that I judge between performance teams and traditional competitors as fair as I possibly can. While my personal beliefs may be fairly one-sided on this issue, I am in no hurry to reward teams that poorly defend the activity of policy debate. As a result, I have voted for performance teams a few times. <span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif""> <span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif""> <span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif""> <span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"">I’m a huge fan of high-tech counterplans with very specific solvency for various AFFs. I would much rather judge a debate involving such a counterplan than something generic, but I understand that those options are not always available. <span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif""> <span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"">I won a lot of debates on conditionality being bad. I read virtually all my advocacies dispo. I think that with perfect argumentation on both sides, dispo probably trumps condo in a battle of competing interpretations. But I have voted NEG the overwhelming amount of the time when the AFF has gone for theory. <span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif""> <span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"">I mostly chalk that up to poor execution. If you feel like your back is truly against the wall and you have no other options, I will not penalize you for going for theory. But you should know that I find theory debates to be the absolute least pleasant rounds to judge. If you simply read a premade “Condo Good/Bad/Whatever” block in front of me without making any attempt to actually respond to the other teams arguments, you will be very unhappy with your speaks and may be disappointed with my unwillingness to make cross-applications for you. <span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif""> <span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif""> <span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"">I believe the most valuable part of policy debate happens before tournaments ever start. I learned more from the amount of research I did than from any time actually spent in rounds. Partially as a result of this, I place a premium on evidence quality. The 2AR and 2NRs that I enjoy most are those that isolate by name the handful of cards they believe win them the debate and provide clear analysis of what I should look for when calling for each one. This not only makes the process of rendering my decision much easier, but also much more objective and predictable. If those are things you value and/or you covet a speaker award, I would encourage you to structure your speech in this manner.
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"">Judges name __Clint Ehrlich-Quinn__    **
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"">School Affiliation **__<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif""> Damien High School __<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif""> <span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: red">
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"">Please indicate your experience with policy debate (college debater, former college debater, former HS debater, HS coach, college coach). **
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"">How many rounds have you judged on the Alternative Energy topic? **
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"">How many years have you been judging? **
 * <span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"">Any predispositions on topicality that you think students debating in front of you should keep in mind? Do you tend to vote on T frequently/infrequently? **
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"">Any leanings as to how you feel about evaluating kritiks? **
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"">Any leanings as to how you feel about evaluating performance arguments? **
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"">Any leanings as to how you feel about evaluating counterplans? What about theory issues relating to counterplans such as the legitimacy of conditionality – any predispositions or other thoughts? **
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"">Besides the need for clarity, do you have any speed, stylistic or other miscellaneous comments? What is your policy about reading evidence after a debate? **