Ebert,+Maddie


 * Background in debate:** I debated policy for three years at Omaha Westside, and now debate NFA-LD for Truman State. I frequently debated on the national circuit, often clearing during high school. I ran arguments ranging from a Nietzsche aff to politics. I have only judged a few tournaments on this topic, so please explain jargony space concepts if your argument has them.


 * Specific thoughts on arguments:**


 * T:** I tend to default to reasonability. I’m not terribly familiar with the T “norms” on this year’s topic, but I am down to vote on it if well explained. I want you to impact your standards and explain why I should prefer your vision of the resolution.


 * DAs:** Like them. I ran them a lot in high school and run them a lot now. The more specific the better. I love a good politics debate.


 * CPs:** I really like techy, creative PICs that come from doing good research. The more case-specific a CP can be the better. Word PICs are probably bad, but I can be convinced otherwise. I am OK with condition, consult and international fiat counterplans (I have run them all) but you need to be ready to theoretically defend them.


 * Ks:** They are best when made specific to the affirmative, especially the link story. Absent a good link story, the perm probably solves best. I think the perm is often the biggest problem with generic Ks. I am OK with the one-off, but I often think there are more strategic combinations of positions. I really like “K link/impact turns the case” analysis and think this can be a game-changer even if you are losing the alternative debate. Please explain your alt clearly, because it’s real easy to run an alt you can’t competently explain and really muddle the debate.


 * Non-traditional debate (affs without plan texts, identity arguments, performance arguments, etc):** It’s important that your advocacy is stable to have actual clash instead of a game of “we don’t link”. I probably find framework more compelling than the average circuit judge, as my personal defaults are to prefer affs with a plan text. You can run these arguments in front of me and I will fairly evaluate them, but I’m not the best judge for it. If you do run these positions, please make your argumentation specific to the positions run in the round.


 * Theory:** Limited neg conditionality is probably good (1 K, 1 CP, some DAs). That being said, I will vote for condo if you go for it and win it. I’m especially inclined to vote when the neg strategy is abusive. I generally don’t think other theory is a reason to reject the team, but I will reject the position.


 * Other thoughts:** Don’t steal prep. It’s the quickest way to lose speaks in front of me. I will call you on it. I don’t take prep for flashing, but if it’s getting excessive I will tell you. I will take prep if your partner is prepping while you flash. Please be clear- many debaters make themselves unclear in an effort to go faster than they should. Be serious, but don’t be a jerk. Debate is a fun activity, and while it’s great to be competitive, it’s not at the expense of the community.