Schwabe,+Ben

Hey guys, my name is Ben Schwabe. I debated LD locally and nationally for 3 years at New Trier High School and was the IHSA State Champion my senior year

PF- Glenbrooks 2017

BIG THINGS:
 * 1) 1. I take my objectivity as a judge very seriously. **Debate is a game that should be left to the debaters. This means that the round is truly yours to do what you wish with it.** There are only two exceptions: Offensive arguments (you know what these are), which will be punished heavily in the speaks category, and exclusionary practices (e.g. spreading against a clearly less experienced team) will be frowned upon. I leave it to you guys to figure out the latter before the round. I will not hack or show preference for a certain style
 * 2) 2. The quality of evidence throughout all types of debate is in heavy decline. I think this is a major problem and will punish sketchy evidence practices. On the other hand, debaters who show that they have put time into their research and provide quality evidence will prosper in the speaks category. CX is your best opportunity to do this. Evidence comparison will be very much appreciated.
 * 3) 3. The flow is god in the round. This means signpost clearly if you want to win. Explain the interactions between your argument and your opponents. I will not extend an argument through ink.

SPEAKER POINTS: Because we’re in a tournament with outrounds, I view speaker points mainly as a judgement of whether you should get the tiebreaker if you’re on the edge of breaking. I start at 28 and go up or down from there 30 – Damn. 29 – Very good job, impressive use of evidence and weighing, strategic use of CX, thorough rebuttal, collapsed to a clear voting issue 28 – Pretty good job, good evidence, did some relevant weighing, CX helped you a bit, decent rebuttal, did a decent job of framing the debate 27 – Not very good, OK evidence, maybe some superficial weighing, CX didn’t seem to have a direction, some rebuttal, no collapsing 26 – Bad, evidence was not great, CX was all over the place, rebuttal was superficial and missed the opponent’s important points, no collapse

DEFAULTS: (Like I said, Debate is your game, debate your style and have fun, these are just my thoughts about debate if you’re curious)

SPEED: Go for it. If you speed, I’ll probably end up calling for more evidence than I usually would. No problem with this at all. I’ll call clear if you are incomprehensible. Ignoring this will lead to me stopping flowing. That’s not good for you so I recommend you clear it up.

CONVENTIONAL AFFS: This sort of debate is what I mostly did in high school, so I can judge it well. I’m not sure I buy the AFF/PRO getting to fiat things outside of a reasonable interpretation of what the resolution prescribes. DA/CPs are fine.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 12pt;">THEORY: Theory is ok as a means to check actually abusive practices, but frivolous theory is generally both obvious and unconvincing. If you see abuse, don’t be afraid to do it, but I will have a low threshold for what beats back a frivolous theory shell.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 12pt;">Ks: I’ve ran them, I understand a lot of the literature and I have no problems with you running them. I think that Ks generally need a clearer collapse and ballot story, but if you can do these well then you are on your way to a win.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 12pt;">TOPICALITY: My ideas on T are similar to theory. If you think that there’s a violation, pull the trigger. Sketchy T interps probably won’t do as well though.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 12pt;">MISCELLANEOUS:

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 12pt;">Risk Assessment: risk is multiplicative along a link chain. I’m going to hold you to the risk your card entails, for example a card that says something will happen is clearly a stronger endorsement than a card that says it might or could happen. Zero risk is possible

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 12pt;">Disclosure: I think disclosure is generally good but I don’t have much of an idea of disclosure norms in PF so I won’t hack for disclosure theory

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 12pt;">RFDs: I will probably take a little bit. Bear with me.