Phillips,+Josh


 * Josh Phillips**
 * Affiliation: Ruston High School**


 * Debate Background**: This will be my second year judging, and I have plenty of experience being a debater. I debated for Ruston High School (LA) for 4 years. No college debating. I am currently a student at LSU.


 * General**:


 * 1) You need to have fun. I am a fun guy and I enjoy you making jokes, being aggressive etc. Debate is a game.
 * 2) Don’t over-adapt. I would like you to be able to adapt some to my preferences but at the same time, you need to do what you are most comfortable with. There are very few arguments which I will not evaluate.
 * 3) I will default to being a policy-maker and I usually vote in an offense/defense paradigm. I believe terminal defense is most effective when it is setting up your offense
 * 4) Speed is the only way to go. But, I need clarity. If you start mumbling authors and dates, don’t get in the 1AR overview and start saying “extend my Ferguson 9 from the 2AC.” I need to know what everything is saying
 * 5) I will call for cards if I need to but it is up to the debaters to point out fallacies in the evidence.
 * 6) Basically, be clean and clear but have fun
 * Oh, one more thing. I haven't done much judging this year with this topic so inform me adequately. Just be careful with acronyms. Make sure you communicate at least once what it stands for before you start using it.

Meta vs. Mega: Probability and magnitude are much more important to me than timeframe. Unless you can give a solid story as to why your timeframe possibly preempts the impacts of the opposing position, then you aren't helping yourself much making timeframe arguments. Probability is the highest standard I use when evaluating a round so good risk calculus is essential, especially on the link/internal-link level.
 * Argument issues**:

Case: I view advantages to be equivalent to independent DA's against the status quo. So, as the negative, terminal defense on the advantages can be an absolutely solid strategy to bolster your offense.

Topicality: Topicality is a voting issue. I really hold the negative to a high level on the T debates. I am fine with using topicality as a time skew but if you go for it, then you need to go for it. Don’t just halfway extend some standards and a voter and then expect a ballot.

Kritiks: It is very difficult for me to completely disregard all of my pragmatism and rationale. I enjoy the kritik when it tends to be more policy oriented. The link to the 1AC needs to be clear, strong, and specific. I am not as well versed in kritikal literature so if you choose to go for a K then I expect you to have good solid overviews and link/impact analysis. The more specific to the aff, the better.

Performance: I am still undecided how I feel about this, I will say that I would not punish such arguments but I don’t prefer them. I have run one or two performance AFF’s in my time though.

Counterplans: I love counterplans. I expect them to be competitive but I ran plenty of consult/agent/conditions counterplans in my time. I really like those arguments but there is a legitimate theory argument to be made against them.

Disads: I love politics DA’s. But I also hold them to a high standard. Don’t come reading your camp uniqueness for the 1NC. I love trickery in these debates. Example of what I like: Giving solid analysis as to why the plan causes a certain lobby group to backlash against a bill is great. Don’t just say it causes Congress to be divided.

Theory: -Conditionality- Good (to an extent). The AFF has a real case against 3 or 4 conditional advocacies. -PIC’s- I can be persuaded either way -Delay- Neg leaning -Foreign Agent CP’s- Love them!! Especially this Space topic -Perms- I expect them to be legitimate and there is a point where perms are overly abundant

Overviews: I really prefer the overviews to be embedded in the flow. I don’t mind an overview at the top of the flow, but I always thought it more beneficial to split it up and take overviews of main arguments on the line-by-line. But do what you are comfortable with. Just remember that a good impact comparison does more than just magnitude, timeframe, and probability but rather, it actually compares your impact risk in relation to their impact risk.

Things I hate: Anything about Aliens Timecube, ASPEC, RVI’s, Stupid things.

If you have any other questions don't hesitate to ask me!