Bennett,+Sam

I debated 3 years at Little Rock Central in high school

I have been judging high school debate in my state and nationally for 5 years.

Paperless: I stop prep when the flash drive is pulled from the computer. Please try to be efficient with speech flashing times. Email chains are fine if Wi-Fi is working at the tournament.

In general, I’m open to debaters making whatever arguments they like as long as it is a coherent argument that has a claim, warrant, and impact. I will default to evaluating the debate by what was said in the debate and not my personal dispositions. I think it is important that debaters engage with each other's arguments rather than speaking past each other -- this is a flaw I see too often.

In terms of decorum, debaters should be respectful of each other, if you aren’t your speaker points will suffer.

In terms of specific arguments:

Topicality: I don't often vote on T. When I do I lean more towards reasonability than competing interpretations. This means if the aff is abusive or clearly untopical I will err neg regardless of the interp debate and if the neg is reading an interp that is clearly harmful to affirmative teams I am more likely to err aff. That being said if the work is done and the arguments made then evaluating T through competing interpretations is no problem. I also need to see how T affects the rest of the debate.

Disadvantages: I really enjoy them. I think I’m pretty similar to most everyone in these debates. Specificity is always better than being generic, and warranted impact calculus is necessary to win the debate.

Counterplans: I'm fine with counterplans. I lean affirmative on the theoretical legitimacy of consult, conditions, and PICs but can be persuaded that they are legitimate. If the counterplan text is long and complicated you should slow down so I can flow it. I’ll need warranted explanation of why the counterplan solves the aff and is net beneficial to vote for it.

Criticisms: I don't have a problem with Ks, but am often frustrated by K debates. I find that debaters often read arguments and authors without a good understanding of the literature or of how to apply the literature they have read the a debate. I debated Ks for three years, have judged them for five, and have a college degree, but this does not mean you shouldn't explain your argument or only speak in jargon. Links should always be contextualized in the context of the affirmative even if there are not cards for every link. There need to be warrants to all the arguments; don’t just say "value to life outweighs" or "ontology first", you have to explain why that is true. I think if you haven't mitigated the case in some way it makes it harder to win the K. As far as framework is concerned I lean negative on the legitimacy of critiques.

K affs: I have no problem with K affs and read a few while I debated. An aff without a plan must have strong warranted reasons that it is justifiable in framework debates in order to win. Critical affirmatives with a topical plan text have an easier time, but I'm probably right in the middle on the question of legitimacy depending on the specifics of your affirmative and the framework arguments the negative presents. If you are reading framework against a K aff having a topicality portion of the argument makes it a voting issue where it might otherwise not be. I think to win with a critical affirmative you need to be doing a lot of case debate or cross applications of your case on to relevant flows.

Framework: When reading framework clash and examples are incredibly important. While cards are fine and often very useful, I find analytics on standards, why we debate, how we should debate, and what the round means for debate as an activity are going to get you further. Specifics are what change framework from simply something the other team has to answer into a round winning argument.

Theory: Don’t just read your blocks at each other. Approach theory like every other argument. You should have warranted responses to their argument that include disadvantages to the other teams interpretation and reasons that yours is preferable. Don’t just blaze through theory debates at full speed or I won’t be able to flow it.

Cross-examination: it’s important. A well executed cross x can substantially mitigate an argument or drastically improve your speaker points.

If you have any specific questions feel free to ask me before the debate or contact me here: sambnntt@gmail.com