Puuri,+Cory

=Cory Puuri, Retired Neenah High School and Middle School Debate Chair= =Policy Philosophy=

Overview - I am a flow-oriented judge with an emphasis on an offense/defense framework of argument evaluation. However, I probably tend to be more easily persuaded by quality defensive takeouts than your typical judge that uses this framework. I view the round holistically in that I look closely at argument interaction and I don't think any arguments are necessarily above the rest unless you make persuasive arguments as to why they should be on a different level. I view theory (including topicality) as a procedural argument and default to drop the argument, not the team. Obviously, if you lose topicality as an aff, you'll lose the plan as a policy option, but may not necessarily lose the round, depending on the other arguments in the round. I have a fairly high threshold for theory voters, unless a warranted voter is completely dropped (see dropped = true).

Flowsheet - My preference for speed is for a moderately paced round, but I will/can flow a rapid round that is clear and well-structured. A dropped argument is a true argument. An argument that is delivered in an unclear manner will not get flowed. I have difficulty keeping up with blippy theory arguments, but will do my best. I don't buy new extensions in the final rebuttals. The 1AR needs to extend case impacts if they expect me to weigh them in my decision. The 2NC and 1NR are a block, as such I don't buy that both speeches need to extend the same arguments, and while I prefer the block essentially just extends 1NC arguments, I will listen to new arguments in the 2NC. While some may think impact comparisons are not new arguments in rebuttals, I would not consider myself in that camp. I may resolve in my mind that you are losing to a dropped argument, but then if I accept your new time frame comparison argument, I could change that decision. I can't justify that in my mind any more than I can justify allowing a 1NR to read all new links to a disad or a 1AR making a new "we meet" argument on a neg interpretation that was in the 1NC. I often flow new arguments in rebuttals but rarely include them in my decision. I won't call evidence unless there is a dispute about what it says or unless I believe it violates am accepted ethical rule.

Argument Preference - I will listen to any argument. I do take issue with racist, sexist, heterosexist, ageist, and elitist arguments. I may not vote against you but I may seek other remedies. I tend to prefer case-specific strategies so much so that I am more likely to vote on carded inherency evidence than I am to give you leeway on uniqueness to a politics disad versus a case with no inherent barrier. I prefer argument quality over quantity. I like plan-specific counterplans. I also hate the "9 off, go for what they drop/under cover" strategy. I will reward aff teams that don't give these negs any outs. By the same token, I dislike big stick affs that have crappy internals and I'm easily persuaded by a well articulated analytic about the lack of an internal link that is presented in conjunction with some min-max fallacy argumentation. Finally, don't waste your time on plan spelling/grammar flaws. I think this is a speech activity and I evaluate what is said as opposed to my reading of the text of the plan, and so I am easily persuaded that the reason of those implementing legislation will triumph over a literal interpretation of the text of laws. However, if the aff (or neg's) intent for plan (or CP) is fundamentally flawed (i.e., they think the DOD can build a windmill farm on private property), then that could be a substantive issue and factor into my decision.

Speaker Points - Speaker points are so subjective, but I try to infuse as much logic as possible. Here is a breakdown: 30 the best debater (at this level) I've heard in the past couple years; 29 excellent, you did something to impress me but need a little more work on one important aspect of your skills; 28 very good, you didn't do anything to impress me but you're competent and still need work on one or two aspects of your performance; 27 good, you're competent but still need work on 2-3 things or need more than a little work on one thing; 26 decent, you have above average competency but need work on a variety of aspects of your performance; 25 average, you were ok but need work on almost all aspects of your performance; <25 you did something disrespectful or need extensive work on one or more aspects of your performance and may not have demonstrated competency to be debating at this level; and .5 increments you did something that uniquely impressed me beyond the level below this but still need some work to get to the next level. If you want tendencies for preferencing purposes, I'd say most times I give out points in the range from 27-28.5.

General Preferences - I reward debaters that call out bad arguments and poor evidence, use speech time efficiently (i.e. only make enough arguments to win and then sit down), use “if/then” statements in framing the decision process for me, perform impact analysis, employ crystal clear fast speaking, monitor argument interaction closely and call attention to opponent's strategic mistakes, make strategic concessions and cross-applications that were smart and unexpected, and who make me laugh. I take it as a given that you develop a strategy from an argument interaction framework, that you have a reason for reading every argument you chose, and that that reason rarely is for the sole purpose of a time trade off. I hate debate strategies that rely on overwhelming opponents with a high quantity of bad arguments, theory voter proliferation, and unwarranted “blippy” debate. I expect you to be respectful to me and to the other participants in the round. I will dock speaker points if you're disrespectful. I vote on Politics, Agent and Consultation CPs even though I think they are crappy arguments (I also tend to vote on smart, true analytics against such arguments more often than some debaters would like...simply because I want people to develop case-specific strategies). I may ask for cites or plan texts because I also coach. I trust that you will provide them out of courtesy, but will not factor your decision not to give them to me into my decision in the round.

=LD Philosophy=

Background - I come from a Policy background that dates back to 1987. I did very little LD in HS. I did some in College but their version is pretty much one-person Policy. I have coached LD extensively the past 2-3 years because I was at a school where we couldn’t recruit enough debaters to put together a policy team.

Default Paradigm – I start from the premise that the aff is going to provide a value and a criterion that shows how affirmation upholds the value (stock v/c case structure). I presume that in most cases the neg will run a v/c to show how negation upholds their value. I have picked up negs that did not run a case but simply ran off-case arguments and/or negated the affirmative case through “turns” and/or crafty definitional debate. I don’t think the neg has to provide a v/c as I only hold them to a standard of negation, but I do think it is strategic for purposes of shifting ground to the negative, so I always coach my students to run v/c on the neg. I tend to not consider probabilistic implications to affirmation or negation of the resolution in my decision unless I get a persuasive reason why I should (see Observations below). I also tend not to consider new arguments in rebuttals with minimal, appropriate liberty given to arguments about how I should frame my decision.

Definitions – I prefer comprehensive definitional debates because that is where ground is established. Too often, I see only flippant definitional debate where a clear articulation of definitions and impacts (i.e. rez analysis) could have better framed the debate and made the decision easy.

Introductory Quotes – Please don’t waste my time. Read a quote that you can use to make arguments. This isn’t Oratory. I don’t need to smile at your witty choice of quotes, or become emotionally engaged in your case. Give me something with some substance that preempts your opponent’s args or supports your case.

Observations – I am pleased when debaters make an observation that establishes what each side will need to do to win. That is the best gift LD gave to Policy (aka “framework”) in recent memory, in my humble opinion. Hint: If you do not provide a rez analysis/framework argument, you should have zero complaints about my decision.

Contentions – You must explain how affirmation or negation ties into your v/c. All other contentions are at your discretion. Hint: I love it when affs use a contention to preempt neg arguments.

Rebuttals – I am not a fan of the trend in favor of only providing crystallization points in final rebuttals. You definitely need to cover key arguments on the flow, even if you are grouping them. Don’t complain about my decision if you neglect to tell me how to apply your arguments.

How to get high speaker points – 1) Give me a teched-out definitional debate, 2) Use your introduction quote to make winning arguments, 3) Cite quality field contextual sources for evidence, 4) Make me laugh with you instead of at you (Hint: If I shake my head and sigh, I’m probably laughing at you), 5) Being nice to an opponent that you are burying, and 6) Using if-then statements to create a decision hierarchy.

How to get trashed on speaker points – 1) Be rude to your opponent, 2) Make fun of your opponent’s arguments instead of answering them, 3) Don’t explain the warrants in your evidence, 4) Try to cover your opponent’s arguments with blippy claim extensions rather than grouping and explaining warrants of your arguments, and 5) Read definitions on the negative and don’t use them.