Patterson,+Chris

Debated at Greenhill and USC


 * Tl:dr version:**

If you're short on time, and looking to understand how I judge without reading through everything below, you should know that I debated for Eric Forslund. And that I think about debate in much the same way he does. Teams that spend time debating the case get higher speaks. Teams that read CO2 Good get higher speaks. I'm probably a little less anti-K than he is. That's probably a function of me being 40 years his junior and not being a Republican. Besides that, and the fact that he's obviously a much better judge than I am, we're probably pretty similar.


 * One important thing to note, is that I haven't judged that many debates yet. And so I am still figuring out how I resolve a lot of issues and think about certain questions. There are some debates that I have a hard time adjudicating, not because I can't keep up, but because I don't know exactly haven't judged enough debates to have figured out a system for making certain decisions. This is particularly true in FW vs. K aff debates.That being said, I worked really hard as a debater and I'll spend as much time as I need to, to make the right decision.**


 * If you have some time:**

I have judged one tournament on this topic. And I haven't cut any cards. So taking the extra 20-25 seconds to explain it in your speech will be appreciated and you’ll probably see that appreciation in your speaks.

That being said, I can read, and I can also flow, so you should feel free to go for a nuanced case specific strategy in front of me and feel confident that I can get up to speed. Debates should always be about the aff, and a neg team that makes the aff look bad on the case debate or a 2A or 1A who knows their shit is going to make me excited to judge the debate.

I try not to let my personal biases reflect my decisions, but I do tend to give higher speaks to people who make arguments I like.

As a general rule, the more specific you get, the more I’ll like watching you. Nothing would make me happier than watching the neg for the case or a PIC based in the literature of the aff.

Topicality—I probably think reasonability is more persuasive than other judges do. I think its important to talk about what your interpretation of the topic looks like. What are the affs? What disads does the neg get? Etc.

DA’s—Great

CP’s— Neg teams cheat. Everyone knows this. And everyone lets the neg get away with it. If the aff invests the time explaining why 3+ Conditional advocacies, process cps, fiat state fiat, etc. are bad, then I'm definitely willing to vote on theory. Aff teams don't usually do this though. And when they do, they normally do it poorly. So I feel like most of this is moot.

K’s— I didn't go for many Ks when I debated, so if its not a cap, gender, or security K I probably won't know your authors or your argument very well. But that's just a reason you need to explain your argument. I think that neg teams should contextualize their links and their alternatives in terms of the affirmative. I'm often persuaded by aff teams that explain why the failure to do this implicates the negs turns case arguments and probably means the alt doesn't solve the aff. I think a good K debate should sound a lot like a case debate. Everyone should be talking about the aff.

Critical Affs—I'm a lot less of hardliner than I used to be on this. But I still think you should read a plan. I think that plan should be topical. And you should defend that plan. Just because you talk about something related to the topic, doesn't mean you're topical. It probably just means there is probably a topical version of your aff. I also just don't think a lot of these teams make coherent arguments. And even when they do, the arguments they make the 1AC, 2AC, 1AR, and 2AR are almost always different. Having said all that, I've voted for critical affs before and I probably will again. I don't hate these arguments, I just don't find them as persuasive as some others do.

Also, Forslund jokes are good. Timmons jokes are better. A good Lyall Stuart joke (assuming you know who that is) will get you at least half a speaker point.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.