Mettler,+Simon

I am a senior at Emory and I debated for four years in high school at Chattahoochee. I have debated occasionally at Emory, I coach in the Atlanta UDL, and I judge at a few high school tournaments every year.

I will preface my judge philosophy by saying that I think reading judge philosophies is overrated. People tend to think that debate rounds are all about to judge, when really it's all about the people doing the debating. During my years of debating and judging, I have gone for and voted on pretty much every argument out there at some point. If you win an argument, I will vote on it, if you don't win it, I won't. So don't over-analyze what I'm saying below, if you're gonna go for any argument just debate it well.

Theory- Debate is an activity that provides incredible value. Theory debates should ultimately be impacted in the context of the value that debate can and should provide, whatever you think that this value is. Personally, I feel as though debate skills spillover and help with everything ranging from academic performance to job interviews. So I'm very open to theory arguments (on both sides) that are well articulated, and I'm receptive to pretty much any argument about the kind of "value" that you think debate provides. However, vague terms like fairness and education mean very little if you can't articulate relate them to this "value". If both teams are just reading generic theory blocks without understanding or explaining the arguments that they're making, I will be very bored...

Topicality- Be as specific as you can with your violations. I understand the value of reading generic violations in the 1NC, but unless an aff clearly violates a generic violation it's gonna be a little difficult to convince me to vote on it. There's a reason that pretty much every aff couldn't be topical, so make your violations case or plan specific and they'll be much better. See my views on theory to get an idea about how I think T should be impacted.

Disads- Disads are a good thing. The higher the quality of the disad the better.

Counterplans- Counterplans are probably legitimate. They're usually pretty strategic. Some counterplans are cheating so be sure you have a reason why cheating is good if you plan on reading them.

Kritiks- They can be great arguments, but are usually run poorly. I hate all generic boring debates, but I think that generic kritik debates are the worst, especially when both sides don't know what they're talking about. I will not be won over by your use of jargon, and I will not automatically call for every framework card read in the debate to decide a round in your favor. I will be won over by well-articulated and/or case-related kritiks.

A couple of other things: 1. Argument quality tends to outweigh argument quantity 2. Well-articulated and/or true analytical arguments are as good as evidence in some cases 3. Quality of evidence is important, but explaining evidence is much more important. I will call for evidence when there is comparative debate about it or when it is questioned, but I will not read all of the cards read on a certain issue just to decide how to vote on it. 4. Be aware of the "big picture"- understand how arguments interact with each other, look for useful cross-applications, and make strategic concessions. 5. I appreciate jokes- if you need inspiration, anything about James Herndon or Mike Lacy is usually pretty entertaining to me. 6. Enjoy yourself- everyone wants to win, but in the end you debate not just to win but to participate in a fun and enjoyable activity with people that you get along with.