Jennings,+Andrew

Updates November 2010.


 * __Macro Issues__**

I'll try hard to make the right decision but most of the time it doesn't take me an hour to figure out a round if someone is getting clobbered. So if I don't spend an hour figuring out a debate it's nothing personal I promise.

I definitely value tech over truth. Dropped arguments are true arguments. I think this is why I don't need to read a ton of evidence.

Everyone should slow down on prewritten analytical blocks. In way too many debates I've judged this year teams go lightning fast and I end up missing a wreck of stuff.

Slowing down's especially important for round winning TKO arguments. I judge debates sometimes where some team thinks I overlooked some important issue but they only spent like 6 seconds talking about it. If it's super important try to spend some time on it.


 * __Specific issues__**

__Topicality/specification__- T's fine, spec arguments are kinda stupid but if some asks in cross-ex what 'military presence' the plan removes, answering with the whole 'for the purposes of DAs but not CPs' is shady.

__Framework__- I think the aff should have to defend the topic and that negatives should get kritiks. I think the aff should be able to weigh the 1ac against the K but can be persuaded differently. I'm no Dictator Repko and won't clobber you for not defending the topic, but I'll say it's hard to convince me that there's some compelling reason for not defending it.

__Disads/Case debates__ are all preferred.

__Counterplans__- I think it's getting crazy how many judges let the neg get away with 4 counterplans. Even if it's a new aff I don't really know why you can read anything you want. I think my gut feeling is 1 K and 1 counterplan but obviously could be persuaded otherwise.

__Kritiks are fine__- Having graduated from Silver Lake Jr./Sr. High School I know what you're thinking: you can't go for the K! Actually I'm okay with the K. I don't understand a lot of Zizek/Badiou/Lacan/Derrida/Heideggeresque kinda stuff so you'd have to explain it well. I don't really prefer to hear these debates but I understand their utility given most teams inabilities to answer these arguments.

__Offense/defense__- I'm still on the fence about this. I understand if a counterplan solves all the case then there can only be a risk of a disad, but if the disad just links to the counterplan then trivial net benefits seem stupid. I can be persuaded either way so it's best not to leave it to my own devices. I'll preface that by saying that the whole MSU 'there's always a risk' is a non-sensical notion that leads to poor(er) card cutting and bad disads.

Dropped arguments are true arguments, I have a higher threshold then I used to about voting on dumb dropped voting issues but am still sympathetic to the 'they dropped this and it was flagged as a voter.'


 * __Random side notes/pet peeves__**

1) T**he only thing that really makes me cranky in debates is asking how much prep time you get at a tournament after this first round. I mean, after the 1st round you know how much prep time you are allowed. Asking how much prep time you get in Round 5 drives me crazy. ITS ROUND 5 what have you been doing for the last 4 rounds?!**

2) I haven't cut a wreck of cards on the intricacies/nuances of most military stuff. I'm not a n00b but if you're going to make moves on a hyperspecific PIC/t arg then it's best you slow down and make it really clear.

3) I don't have a specific method of giving speaker points and at some points they're kind of arbitrary. Obviously your debate skills will make up 90% of your points but things like being respectful/funny/having a lot of ethos do play a role in how I assign points.

4) Kansas basketball also rules. Go hawks!