Smith,Lucas

Lucas Smith Coach at Washington Technology Magnet in St. Paul MN (Transportation, Latin America, Oceans) Debated for Macalester College (Democracy Assistance, Energy) Debated for Lawrence Free State High School (Energy, Social Services, Military Presence)  PRE-NAUDL UPDATE I will not be enforcing any tournament rules beyond speech times etc.  I think framework is a method da to affs a lot of the time. So it would behoove you to read "state good" turns case style arguments.  PRE- MN STATE 2015 UPDATE - see farther down for paperless info I don’t impose any sort of content restrictions on debates that I judge. I like discussion about policy, but I coach teams across the ideological spectrum. Read the arguments that make the most sense and the ones you are best at articulating.

I have to admit that I’ve become a bit of a K hack. Perhaps this is a conclusion brought about by a sample bias, but I vote for the K a lot. I vote for K tricks a lot. You should still assume I know very little about your specific K, but you can assume I am comfortable with the basic vocab (ontology, epist, framework etc).

Speed is overrated. For some judges, being a “good debater” requires being fast (and clear). I respect people who put in the work to achieve excellence at talking fast while being clear. I just don’t think that’s true in 95% of the debates I judge. Being a good speaker means talking like you know whats going on, making good choices (including saying speed bad if you are being spread), and being funny.

I find that debaters blow through theory and analytic arguments so quickly and don’t transition well between cards. This results in a messy flow and a messy decision. Slow down a bit and be clearer.

The no-card neg block does not impress me. I am all for reading less cards, but sometimes a card is necessary. Debaters should definitely cut down on the number of cards they read, but don’t eliminate them from use.

Tech over truth. A good argument beats a bad card.

Line-by-line is still super important for me and the best way to get high speaker points. But, because most times debaters struggle with line-by-line, my judging has changed a little bit to be less flow-centric.

Impact calculus is really important. I decided every debate at Concordia this year by saying that X outweighed Y or vice versa. Turns case analysis is important.

__Ks/K Affs/Performance etc__ Whatever. I vote for framework about as much as I vote for the impact turn to framework  __Disadvantages__ I tend to look at uniqueness first, but the link v uniqueness debate is best settled by who has the best argument/evidence.
 * Specifics.**

Turns case analysis is a must.

__CP__ Not sure I judged one this year. Most of the old philosophy applies.  __2014-15 Update__ I think most of my philosophy is the same, but I thought I would put a couple of updates upfront. I am still very line-by-line oriented, but I less enamored with fast debate then I used to be. I am pretty evenly split on framework debates. When framework was the 2NR, I probably voted for it 50% of the time. I am not sure how I feel about the idea that we need new standards of competition for no-plan or method debates. It seems to me that some methods are better than others and that the perm is not the best option if the perm includes the parts of the method you have disads too. . <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"> <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">__Quick Notes__ <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">I don't have many stylistic preferences, I try to give everyone a fair hearing. But its a good idea to assume I have very little content knowledge (e.g. I don't know much about Baudrillard, CRT, etc). Even on Ks that I read, assume zero prior-knowledge. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">I often forget to start a timer, so rely on yours. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Prep stops when the flash drive is out of the computer. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">I usually ask for all the cards at the end of a debate. Don't freak. Its not some conspiracy to steal your evidence. Sometimes I need to look at ev and its just faster if people give me the flashdrive and I can grab the speech docs I need. Other times, I want to give advice on an argument that maybe the neg didn't go for that I thought the aff mishandled. I use the evidence to check my understanding of the argument. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"> <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">__ Summary __ <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">I consider myself a pretty versatile judge having voted for arguments all along the spectrum. I debated a lot of normal policy debate at the beginning of my career, but took a critical turn once I got to Mac. Below are my general opinions, obviously the debaters determine how I evaluated the debate. I am game for pretty much anything. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">Offense is really important (and with it impact calculus) and defense is underrated. Maybe it was the debates I judged last year, but I voted on presumption a fair bit because no-one extended/won an offensive argument. I am perfectly willing to vote on no risk of a disad/advantage.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">I am very tech oriented. Line-by-line and structure are very important to me and how I evaluate debates and really important in how I assign speaker points. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Good arguments outweigh "but we have a card." I try not to call cards, but good debates often require it.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">__Topicality/Theory__ - <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">I default reasonability. For me, this means the aff needs to prove their interp is just as good, not necessarily better. Competing interpretations means that the aff needs offense. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"> Evidence helps me resolve many of these debate. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"> <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Most theory arguments, besides condo, are reasons to reject the arg not the team. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">There are limits to the number of conditional advocacies the neg gets. I probably max out at two (a CP and a K). It gets a little gray after that. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">I am trying to vote less on cheap shots. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">__Disads__ - <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Disads are essential in any negative strategy. Unq versus link depends on the quality of evidence being read. A good link trumps an inconclusive non-unq arg and a good non-uniq trumps a bad link. Turn the case and have an external impact. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Specificity is a plus,but a solid bit of analysis in the block can make a generic disad a specific one. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">__Counterplans__ - <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">CPs should have a net-benefit. Counterplans probably shouldn't do all of the aff. I do have a soft-spot for condition cps, if they evidence is good. Most cp theory questions are reasons to reject the counterplan. Perms are not advocacies. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">I don't default to the squo if you go for a alt/cp

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">__Kritiks__ - <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">I feel like most people skip to here, so I'll try to be more comprehensive. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">I can understand the mechanics of a K debate well. I know that epistemology is and understand the implications of a epistemology da. That said, I might not be familiar with your specific K. Thus, explanation is very important to me.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">Framework is the most important issue. It is a question about where I should start evaluating the debate and what impacts are more important. A lot of affirmatives seem to think framework on the aff is the same as when they are on the neg. For me, they are two very different ideas. For policy affs, you should make arguments about the how unimportant epistemic/ontological questions are. Trying to say that kritiks are inherently unfair probably won't get you very far.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">I am perfectly willing to vote on epistemic focus bad. Defending your epistemology is an underrated strategy.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">__Framework Debates (vs. no plan affs)__

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">This debates are categorically different from the framework debates discussed above. These debates are about the procedural question of: should the aff have to defend a plan? <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Negatives should advance offensive reasons for why this should be the case. What skills does this form of education teach? Why is predictability good? I really like decision-making impacts.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Having offense is really important for both sides. I often feel like both sides have an impact, but don't tell me which is bigger.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">__Paperless__ <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">1. Do it right or don't do it at all. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">2. I don't care about prepping during dead time. If someone on a panel wants to police that its fine, but otherwise I am inclined to allow it. Theoretically, it should encourage teams to minimize dead time to prevent the other team from prepping. If there ends up being conspiracy to drag out the debate to steal prep, it'll hurt speaks and I'll intercede and start prep. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">3. Prep stops when the flashdrive is out of the computer. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">4. If you are doing it via email - put me on it. lsmith8@macalester.edu <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"> <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">__Speaker points/Decorum__ - Updated for state 2015 29.5 - as close to perfection as possible. I have no or purely minor comments for improvement. 29-29.5 - it was very good. You did all the right things and did them well. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">28.5-29 - You had moments where you did something really well, but not consistently. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">28-28.5 - average to better than average. Maybe you excelled in content or technical aspects, but not both. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">27.5-28 - below average. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">27-27.5 - there are things to work on. struggled in both argument content and technical execution. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"> <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"> <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Yelling makes me feel really awkward and will likely hurt your speaker points, otherwise just be smart and clear.