Cavanagh,+Kieran


 * Newark/Lexington 2016: the same stuff for bronx applies, I've also added my thoughts on misrepresenting cards and evidence ethics. Also, SLOW DOWN/PAUSE FOR TAGS AND READ CARD NAMES SLOWLY! If I have a disorganized flow it'll be harder to follow you in rebuttals and I could miss an argument. Finally, anyone who knows me would know that I used to much prefer K debates over theory debates, but recently I've become much more neutral about Ks and theory alike so I don't really mind if you read theory (even bad theory) against Ks anymore. Basically, __I really don't care what you run, just do it well.__**


 * UPDATE FOR BRONX 2016: I haven't watched a debate round in a while and as such my ears may not be up to hearing super-fast speeds, so if you're particularly fast or unclear I'd recommend taking your initial speed down just a little and making sure you pause when needed. Because of this, I'll call clear as much as needed without penalty. Alternatively, if you wanted to be safe, you could just flash me your case or include me on the email chain.**

I apologize for this being so long, but I'd rather my paradigm provide more information than less. Not everything is vital and I'm a pretty typical judge, so you should be fine if you choose not to read everything.


 * Background:**

I debated for 2 years at Monticello High School (NY), breaking at a bunch of bid tournaments my senior (or second, whichever way you want to look at it) year. I mostly debated kritikal arguments, but dabbled in various other forms of debate.


 * The short, walking-to-round version:**

I’ll vote on any non-offensive argument so long as it has a warrant and it’s not factually false. Clear crystallization and weighing is the best way to get my ballot, and I give speaks (in no particular order) based on strategy, efficiency/tech skills, and argument quality.


 * Speaks:**

30: amazing, there was nothing you could have done better OR you were good and very funny 29.5: very good, I expect you to go to TOC or bid 29: solid, you have potential and you'll definitely break 28.5: average, you'll probably break 28: okay, I don't expect you to break 27.5: not that great, you definitely need some work below 27: I won't give these often, but I'll let you know why if I do.

I'll disclose speaks **unless** it's clear that you or your opponent did something that will give one of you low speaks, in those cases I'd be uncomfortable so I'd rather you not ask.


 * Overview/General Stuff:**
 * I guess the best way to explain my judging style is that I’ll vote on anything that isn’t offensive, as long as it has a warrant whose quality is high enough that a child could not instantly refute it, or is not simply factually false (i.e. trying to answer a K by saying oppression does not exist is a factually false and offensive argument). The main purpose of this threshold for intervention is that I feel like too many people win off of horrendous/false arguments. While it depends on the nature of the argument, just because you make an argument that has some semblance of a warrant, does not mean I will automatically vote on it.
 * In some situations I reserve the right to intervene against the implication of an argument, whether it’s deciding that an obviously defensive argument labeled as offense is in fact defense, or piecing together arguments to form a ballot story even if that ballot story differs from the one justified by the debater (putting yourself in a situation in which I have to piece together a ballot story based on blips on the flow is not the best decision anyway).
 * Please slow down on author names, tags, analytics, texts/interps, and most theory arguments, as well as pause after reading a card/change your voice while starting a tag. The 5-10 total seconds you lose by doing that will make up greatly for the decrease in overall clarity of the round.
 * If there is a paradigm through which I am told I should evaluate a round (this could be anything from a theory voter, epistemic modesty, RVIs vs no RVIs, a ROTB, a standard, etc) and that paradigm goes conceded and no hint of a counter-paradigm is established, I do not **require** you to explicitly extend that paradigm **unless** I could either miss it or it wasn’t made a big deal of. For example, let’s say you go for an RVI against a theory shell made in the 1NC. The 1NC never read any reasons why you don’t get an RVI, and you read three. Then, the 2NR doesn’t answer the reasons why you get an RVI and goes for the shell and substance. In the 2AR, if you collapse to theory, I don’t require you to explicitly extend that you get an RVI, but you should say “they conceded the three reasons for why I get an RVI” to let me know that an RVI is part of my decision. The purpose of this is to prevent losses from simply not extending things, like people losing because they didn’t extend their FW or their voter. Just so you know, if you’re neg there’s no reason why you shouldn’t do these things, and would probably help my decision in terms of crystallization.
 * Going along with the same theme of extensions, I give credence to aff extensions, but if there’s a dispute between arguments you should give the warrant of the arg you’re extending to contextualize it to the purpose of the extension. An example extension for a conceded argument could simply be “extend Smith, which went conceded- XYZ causes infinite amounts of oppression meaning I always have the strongest link under the ROTB.” Just to be safe, if you provide the warrant of the argument, even if it’s brief, it might help my decision when it comes to comparing two weighing arguments.
 * I will call for cards/analytics if needed.
 * Don’t go for everything, and whatever you go for, don’t just extend it in your last speech because it was conceded. You need to tell me why it matters and why it should be sufficient for you to win the round.
 * If you're debating a lay debater/novice, I'd appreciate it (i.e. you'll get higher speaks) if you make things more accessible for them. If your nontopical aff is all you have, go ahead and you'll probably still get my ballot, but at least try to slow down or explain things well in CX.
 * One final thing to add is that you need to emphasize big issues. If you make a weighing argument that decides the debate, but it’s 10 seconds long, made halfway through the 2NR, and never brought up again, I may mess up and forget about it. Tell me to star things on my flow, or bring it up in an overview, or at the end of your speech. This is especially important when you’re neg due to the 6 minute 2NR, and also highlights the importance of not going for everything.


 * Likes (you’re likely to get good speaks by doing these things):**
 * smart arguments
 * good strategy
 * great weighing
 * great crystallization
 * generating offense
 * tech skills
 * strategically written cases
 * full command of your arguments
 * being funny (if you’re really good and also make me laugh, you might just get a 30)
 * good CX questions
 * good CX answers
 * demonstrating a thorough understanding of the literature you’re reading


 * Dislikes (I’ll vote on them, it’s just that you’re likely to get lower speaks by doing these things, but I won’t necessarily tank them):**
 * putting me in positions where I really want to vote for your opponent but they conceded something silly
 * //bad// tricks (note, interesting tricks are fine, but please don’t read polls+AFC+4 minute underview filled with the worst args ever)
 * lack of crystallization
 * poor strategic decisions
 * bad arguments
 * plan flaw
 * being a serious dick in CX
 * going for everything in your last speech (this is justified sometimes though)


 * Things I won’t vote for:**
 * skep against Ks
 * offensive arguments
 * arguments I didn’t catch
 * arguments I don’t understand at all


 * Evidence ethics/misrepresenting cards**:

If you read a card and it is significant enough that it could decide a round, I will most likely call for it and if it does not say what you said it says, I will disregard it. It doesn't matter if it was dropped, if it doesn't actually support your argument then I won't consider it. This can happen if a) the card has absolutely zero warrant or b) if the author actually concludes something entirely different. However, if it's clear that you maliciously cut the card or intentionally lied about it being miscut, I reserve the right to drop you.


 * Now, to go over the different forms of debate and to go more in-depth:**


 * Ks:**
 * Please have a text to your alt, but texts for framing arguments aren’t required though
 * Performance args are cool, but if it’s very graphic/would make people uncomfortable/etc, please ask if the people in the room are okay with it.
 * Not everyone who doesn’t read performance or Ks is a horrible person, you don’t need to be mean.
 * Unless there’s some other explicit reason directly related to by ballot for why I should prefer your narrow role of the ballot, I default to deciding the ROTB debate by whose impacts are greater/worse/whatever weighing mechanism you provide.
 * Not a fan of jurisdiction arguments against ROTBs
 * You don’t need to be topical
 * I’ll give you higher speaks if you really know your literature


 * Theory:**
 * I don’t have “defaults” in the sense that the debaters need to justify these things, but I guess I “default” to the norms of the activity, which seem to be drop the debater, no RVIs, and competing interps.
 * in addition to doing so for the interp, please slow down/emphasize when reading the abuse story if it’s not immediately obvious what that story is. (i.e. I know why PICs moot the aff, but I’m not sure why not speccing something is bad for neg ground.) I need to see an abuse story (it may be bad, but it just needs to be there) in order to make a coherent decision.
 * No 2AR theory or 2AR RVIs
 * Under competing interps, you don’t need an explicit counter interp if you have offense under an implicit one, which is what I assume competing interps is
 * Reasonability is underused, but you need some sort of a brightline (unless it’s against frivolous theory, I think gutchecking is sufficient)
 * Please crystallize well, especially when there’s a ton of arguments interacting in the round
 * Please weigh between abuse stories
 * I default to a strength of link style of evaluation on various meta-layers of the theory debate, such as on paradigmatic issues or voter weighing (i.e. if you have a ton of offense to education, and they have a tiny amount to fairness, the fact that fairness outweighs is not sufficient to vote for their shell)
 * I don’t like 2NR theory being run as drop the debater, especially if it’s against things like perms. But 2NR meta-theory or 2NR theory on things like advocacy shifts seem to be okay.
 * As much as I see the strategic value in theory, I do think there are times where theory isn’t the best option. That being said, if you read theory against, say, a performance debater, I’m likely to give slightly more credence to the performance debater, but you can definitely win off of theory vs a K. If you read theory against legitimately abusive critical positions, I am definitely open to it.
 * I tend to get bored while flowing theory debates, so if you spice it up, bonus speaks. I’ll leave this open for your interpretation.


 * LARP:**
 * Read defense. It makes it a lot easier to prove why your offense outweighs.
 * Do impact calc.
 * Try not to have tags that are really short like “plan kills polcap” or “dems win,” it makes it harder to flow.
 * Great evidence comparison will give you good speaks.
 * If you got this far then start your speech with a clever pun to get an extra .3 speaks.
 * You don’t need to read evidence for everything, smart analytics are good.


 * Framework:**
 * Morally repugnant frameworks against critical arguments makes me sad. I can understand it more if you’re aff and they read a K, but frameworks which justify bad stuff against Ks will get you lower speaks.
 * Likewise, please don’t ask “where do you show oppression is bad?”
 * Make sure you explain your arguments if they’re really dense.
 * Being able to weigh between framework warrants is a really good skill and I’ll give you good speaks, mainly because without it framework debate is hard to resolve.


 * Case:**
 * Labelling/clearly distinguishing categories of arguments on case is helpful. For example, if you read 3 pieces of impact defense read it on the impact section of case and number them 1, 2, 3, and if you read 5 solvency indicts read it on the solvency section and number them 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
 * Responding to the warrants of args on case is good, you should do it.
 * If you’re aff, I’ll give you bonus points for strategically writing your aff/having a clear game plan for the 1AR/being able to win solely off of extensions from the aff.

if you dab approximately every 15 seconds during your speech i'll give you a 30 because why not