Burns,Jaime

Debated at Lakeland High School for four years; graduated from SUNY New Paltz and only judging from time to time to help my high school team.

Typically, I will likely only judge one or two tournaments a year, so you won't see me much and I won't know the topic. I know enough about debate that I understand the mechanics of any argument – and I know many of the generics – but I will not know a lot on the topic that is exclusive to the topic. I can pick up on things really quick, but if you know your argument is obscure, it would be appreciated if I got some sort of overview with a good explanation and its effects on the round. Explain the necessary terminology I need, the story of the flow, and all else that anyone else who has judged a lot more on this topic would know.

Tabula Rasa is a dream, so I guess that’s why we search for judge preferences. I’ll try to give an accurate representation of what I prefer and what will appeal best to me in a round, but it always depends on the round. Generally, if you have to choose between what you’re comfortable with and what you think I want, choose what makes you most comfortable in the round. I’d rather be won over than catered to.

Also, this is not a definite list. It’s rough on the edges, disorganized (sorry!), and might not include everything. But after I remember something, I will make sure to update this wiki. Have any questions? Ask before the round or e-mail me: thinmint@optonline.net

**__Framework:__**

I default to a very policy framework – I debated at Lakeland, what do you expect? Unless other off-case change the matter, or a different framework is presented, I am simply thinking “what looks better, the world of the aff plan or the status quo?” If a counterplan is put into play, I default to cp vs. plan unless you tell me to look at status quo vs. plan.

This is not exactly framework, but the last point made me think about Multiple Conditional CPs/Alternatives. If you give me multiple worlds in the 2NR and do not distinguish that I should look at them as different worlds, I will default to them working together since that is your advocacy at the end of the debate. Thus, I will definitely buy 2AR arguments that discuss how the different advocacies contradict/do not work with each other, and that will very likely win the round. Unless there was Multiple Advocacy Good on the flow and it was won, do not expect me to shift from this view at the end of the debate. To save yourself some wasted breath, figure out which world you want in the 2NR, kick anything you don’t want, and go for what you want. Paint me a realistic picture.

**__Topicality:__**

My default on topicality is simple: if there is a voter at the end of the round unanswered, I will be obliged to vote on that voter. That being said, I am nice to debate teams who might not exactly answer voters, but answered much else on the flow, since voters have no weight without the other components of the T. However, if there is a T not effectively answered by the aff, but extended with just enough development by the neg throughout the round, I must vote.

A lot of people talk about what standards they prefer on their wiki’s, and to be honest, it goes with the flow. I loved education standards because I see debate as an educational activity, but I know people find out which standards they are most comfortable talking about when it comes down to the 2NR and there’s only time to emphasize one or two. If you can do it well, I will follow.

With that, I’ll just run down some specific arguments that I either love or not:

**ASPEC/OSPEC** – If you dare use them as a topicality violation in the end, I will get thoroughly pissed. Even if you do win it in the end and it stands as a voting issue – if the round really got that bad that such a thing would happen – don’t expect your speaker points to be high. You can use these arguments as binding factors for your Agent CPs - Perm: Do plan and use x part of government (or whole in case of OSPEC/All Agents) is actually the plan/cp for OSPEC [insert arguments and theories related to such] – or for strength of politics links, or really for anything other than a true topicality argument. Please, for my sanity.

**“Topicality is a reverse voting issue”** – I hate this argument. Maybe it’s because I’ve lost way too many rounds I deserved to win because I didn’t hear those words in the speech and affs LOVE tagging them on to get cheap-shot wins. Please, please, do not be that aff team. However, I need to stress to the neg that you cannot drop it. I know when it comes to close rounds, I have the tendency to find my judging easier, and unaddressed voters look really nice to vote on in those moments.

**“Should is the past tense of shall" ** - I’m an English major. English is the language we generally use to express our argumentation in debate. If you do not have a grip on the language you’re supposed to use in debate, I cannot say you are an effective speaker. Plus, normally, I would be unable to say you also “debated better” (as it is shown on ballots) if you cannot properly use the language for debate.

This will probably get outdated pretty quickly, but I am thoroughly pissed at the 2013 - 2014 resolution for having a completely inadequate wording of the resolution text. You cannot "increase economic engagement toward" a country. Engagement implies fiat of multiple parties, which a resolution could never allow. Even if we were to say that "increase economic engagement" simply meant to pass a trade resolution with another country, that means that any sort of fiat ground in which an act of the US is going to **//consequently//** increase economic engagement is not topical. However, just because the resolution was chosen poorly doesn't mean we can't predict Cuban Embargo affs, even if they can easily be argued as grammatically untopical.

**__Counterplans:__**

To be honest, I have not been won over much by counterplan theories, mainly because no one desires to make clash and most of the theory are used as either time filler or cheap-shots. If you want to go for that theory in the end, you really need to spend a lot of time and make sure you bring everything to the table. Make clash, make comparisons, provide good abuse stories, etc. Give me what I need to vote for you; don’t just think it’s a simple way to win. It really isn’t.

That being said, I love counterplans because really, the status quo sucks on a lot of issues brought up – that’s why there is a resolution in the first place. However, I do not like counterplans when:


 * 1) You go really fast on the text and it’s more complicated than “states do the plan”. If those planks solve arguments, include them in overviews, and definitely GO SLOWER ON THE TEXT SO I PICK UP EACH PART. I cannot emphasize that enough. I need to know your CP to vote on it.
 * 2) It is really stupid on the topic. If you’re doing an uphill battle on solvency because it defies common sense, then really, I don’t know if you can convince me to vote on it.
 * 3) They have a really weak net-benefit. I’m usually going to buy that the permutation doesn’t work if the net-benefit is intact, but if the net-benefit has no worth, a perm is a viable option.

Besides those things, I am actually pretty open about counterplans. I’ve done some pretty funky stuff with CPs, so I understand how they are such an asset. But really, really, emphasize a net-benefit, either an advantage to doing the CP (usually in the case of Consult), or a disadvantage to the plan that the CP solves for. Even if you think your CP works well with just solvency, it probably does not garner as much clash with the plan as you think, and then perm solves. I do usually assume what CPs work with which other off-case as net-benefits on my own (ExO and Politics, for example), but it would be nice to actually create connections at some point. Maybe put a small blurb when reading on the CP which off-cases are advantages.

**__Disads:__**

One thing I notice makes me frustrated often in rounds is that debaters do not know which parts of the flow to emphasize. I cannot say that I like link analysis because then there is too much of that and nothing on impact, then visa versa. Seriously, figure out the right balance. However, in a world where there are multiple nuclear war scenarios that all use the same Mead card and claim immediate timeframe (pretty much every other hard policy round), the probability lies within the strength of the link.

That being said, disads work really well with a counterplan alternative, but I feel like disads alone are really weak because they defend the status quo. You NEED to put offense on the on-case flows if you think you will just have the DA as your off-case in the end. Mitigate the impacts and make the status quo not look like such a bad idea. I don’t like voting for status quo if there’s nothing to convince me that it’s okay.

**__Kritiks:__**

Well I have many different conflicting feelings in relation to kritiks. One; I am from a very policy-oriented school, coached by Stefan Bauschard and Brian Manuel for four years. We used kritiks sparingly – usually they never made it to the 2NR – and made sure to read frameworks to attempt to block kritik debates. Two; I was one of the few people who considered extending kritiks into the 2NR on my team. I had a very base, policy-oriented view on kritiks, but I felt I could manipulate them to what I wanted. Three; I constantly worked at the most common kritik blocks, so I do know what arguments secured a win against Ks, and I know what analytics really made sense against Ks. Four; I have studied political theory in college. Although my teacher was surprised about my base of knowledge I obtained through debate on these authors, I learned a lot more from the courses. Nietzsche is NOT a Nihilist. Heidegger critiqued technology because we are making people into resources and we are manipulating objects and nature to our own interest. Oh, and yeah, Nietzsche was in no way an Anti-Semite, nevertheless a Nazi. I might get a bit peeved during the round when political theorists’ ideas are bastardized, but most likely the result will be a Facebook status, not a round loss. Still, I will give you a lecture in the end. So be warned.

That being said, I do not conceptualize kritiks in that weird mumbo-jumbo way that “K hacks” do where nothing makes sense and there is a level of intimidation with all the big words and abstract concepts. Most of your Ks are not actually all that intimidating (maybe if you’re reading Nietzsche or Heidegger, but that’s just because they are the root of odd manipulations of language). Even when I read Heidegger, I break down the difference between Being and being, organize the connection individuals have to both ideas (including technological manipulation of objects) and find/create examples. It will definitely sound like you’re just re-reading tags if you use the exact same language in your overviews: use your own words and make the argument your own. Not only will you help more policy-oriented teams feel less frustrated at the end of the round, it will show clash on the flow and I will know that you know what you’re talking about.

I like link emphasis – specifically how your normally-generic K links so well with this particular plan and, in the case of language critiques, in-round use. I love when I get analytical analysis along with cards to create these links; they connect with me and tell me “well, yeah, that makes sense”. However, please pay enough attention to the other flows. Many debaters hear I like link analysis and then ignore the impact and alternative… which pretty much means goodbye kritik. Evaluate what is most important in the round. Give me good overviews. I don’t think I ask for much.

**__Performance:__**

I’ve never judged a full-on performance. I cannot really say what I want out of them, especially since it’s YOUR performance. Go for it. I will try as best as I can to work within the determined framework and evaluate as best as I can. Turn to my default framework above, though. I will feel inclined to vote based on that framework if a framework is not well-established with the performance.

**__Evidence Reading:__**

I will only read evidence if someone points out within a speech that the evidence needs to be read. Please do not just say “read this evidence after the round; it’s ballin’”; TELL ME what is in the card that is awesome. I will NOT read evidence if that is how you tell me to read it. If I do have to break that rule, because my decision is going nowhere without reading that evidence, then I will not be a happy judge. “And you want me to be a happy judge when I assign speaker points.” (Ben Faber, 2011) However, I am more than glad to read about disputes on evidence that are argued within the round and do not get anywhere. Whether the card is overtagged, or the evidence does not even match the tag, or anything that needs to be noted in the sped-through text, POINT IT OUT within the speech. Then I will read it.

**__Cross-X:__**

Open, with consideration. I will get thoroughly pissed if one partner is constantly interrupting another during c-x. I will probably dock speaker points if you interrupt your partner often, unless I can tell you are pulling the weight on the team and you need to step in. Just try not butting in every question, and don't be pretentious and demeaning to your partner. Determine what is important and what you think you need to explain.

I’m not flowing c-x. That is not a speech; I am supposed to judge speeches. With that, if there is a large discrepancy or revelation made in the c-x, bring it to the speech. That means it will get down on my flow. That being said, I do listen. It’s entertaining. I might remember things that turned out to be great pointers, and I might make a note somewhere about it. But that will not play into my decision if it is not in a speech. If anything, I will include it in my critique if not brought up during the speeches.