Esman,+Pauline


 * Email ** paulineesman@gmail.com if you have any questions
 * Important Note on Reading this Paradigm: ** My thoughts on arguments matter in close debates. The closer the debate/the later in the prelims/elims, the more I would attend to the specifics of the philosophy. Otherwise, just focus on executing well.

Past: Northside Prep, debated 2010-2014 Current: Debating at Northwestern University, 2014-2018 DEBATING/JUDGING EXPERIENCE: Tier 1 (Greatest Experience) Policy v. Policy debates, Policy v. K Debates Tier 2 (Less Experience): K v K debates, Policy v. Identity Debates Tier 3 (Least Experience): Identity v Identity Debates, Identity v K Debates.
 * Debate Background: **

I have had moderate involvement in topic research and judging this year - I produced files for both the Northwestern Debate Institute starter pack and for NAUDL and judged at the New Trier Tournament. However, I have had little familiarity with the topic beyond that. Two implications: (1) if debaters foresee a round becoming a highly specialized debate, CX and some explanation in the last two rebuttals will be important in helping you get the decision you want. (2) T vs policy affs will require more clarification than normal because of my lack of knowledge about affs on case lists you may mention and ground you may discuss.
 * 2017-2018 Education Topic Experience **

-**Clarity...** is really important to me in constructing a debater’s ethos -**Speed...** is preferred -**Card Explanation**...Do not rely on the knowledge that you have good cards as a substitute for explanation. Good cards provide the basis for good explanation and can be the tiebreaker against your toughest opponents.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">The Basics: **
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Tech over truth
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">A dropped argument is a true argument unless there is a predictable cross application that can be made
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Policy and K debates are equally valuable to me.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Performance and identity affs/neg strats are fine, just keep in mind my judging experience above
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Theory is good when debated like a disad w/ terminal impact comparison and flowable warrants
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Most theory args besides conditionality are a reason to reject the argument not the team
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">no type of argument will get you a speaker point boost or downgrade from me
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Stylistic Preferences **

<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">-See topic knowledge header for important info <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">-What are GOOD limits is not always answered by the small/big limits debate. What type of advantages or mechanisms does the other team’s interpretation limit out? Answer this and your debating is better in my eyes <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">-Discussions about the quality of T interpretation evidence need to be terminally impacted with predictability/precision/grammar arguments <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">-Theory needs warrants. A couple robustly explained standards are much preferred to blippy args on both sides. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Consult/Condition/Commision/etc: <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">-legitimacy depends on the way the CP and plan text are both written, the topic lit base and the availability of other neg ground. Rarely is a memo or negotiation CP going to be legitimate truth-wise, but my decision is going to be about how the theory debate plays out <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">-Usually a reason to reject the arg, not the team <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Conditionality <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">-if it is a new aff, I am more persuaded by the need for many conditional options, though this arg still needs to be warranted in a debate (what about a new aff necessitates lots of conditional options versus just multiple new disads/t args?)
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Topicality— **
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">- **<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Competing interps is my default, but reasonability is definitely winnable.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Counterplans+ Theory **

<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">-A-okay, but link debates need to be specific. Pull lines from the cards, discuss their authors, and read cards. Aff specificity claims are more persuasive if the neg is doing no specific work. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">-Jargon is dissuasive, but it can be necessary sometimes. Feel free to ask about a particular author or theory before the round to gauge my familiarity. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">-I have no moral objection to voting on death args, but fear of death arguments are A LOT more winnable in front of me than death good. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">-I am persuaded by aff claims that the alternative can never get politicized, but I think this is (1) because the neg cedes way too much ground on the success of politics. (2) because neg explanations of the alt are super vague. 3) resolved by the neg going for framework on the k <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">-A lot of what I say about performance, below, applies to kritikal affs. It’s totally fine in front of me, but some kind of stasis is probably good UNLESS your aff critiques the idea of predictability
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Kritiks **

<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">-Impact calc is more than timeframe/magnitude/probability/turns case arguments. Frame the debate through the arguments they have conceded, under-covered and misinterpreted. After the 2AC, what is still certain about the disad? <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">-These arguments are fine—I understand that people come to debate, understand debate and derive meaning from debate in different ways. Because of that, I respect hard work over anything. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">-If you are making arguments about the debate community itself, methodology is important to me -- Winning args about exclusivity and solvency are best done two ways -- (1) making wide-ranging examples. If you claim the debate community is exclusive to X group, show you've done you're research -- analyze the wins/losses at tournaments, the protocol at different tourneys, relate it to multiple people (so your sample size isn't 1...). This applies just as equally to teams debating against performance and identity <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">-Similar to the statement above, evidence is good when you're making a statement about society as a whole or something outside the realm of your expertise <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">-Whether it's a politics debate or a race debate, extreme aggression and loud shouting are not my favorite. I feel like this becomes more relevant in these debates due to strong antagonisms about ideas about debate. There are two caveats: I think being assertive and sassy is great (I know the line is a little blurry) AND if you have evidence about the need for rage or aggression as a political strategy, I will respect and understand this aggression. That said, no judge likes to spend two hours of their life getting yelled yet so keep that in mind. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">-Default is that even if the government is bad in the status quo, it is inevitable. To win critiques of state focus, develop either a very strong explanation of how the alt changes this or why it doesn’t matter for alt solvency.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Disads+Case **
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">- **<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Too often disads rely on a tenuous at best internal link chain. Smart analytics by the aff that put the burden on the neg to be accountable for the missing pieces are persuasive even absent ev.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">- **<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">General theory thoughts apply to DA theory. Would be willing to vote on intrinsicness on a disad if the 2AC advanced a thorough enough warranted argument. This means an internal link and an impact in the 2AC. "Intrinsicness-- a logical policymaker could do both" does not satisfy this because it lacks a terminal impact.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Performance + Identity Debate **

<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">29.5-30—Among the best several performances at a tournament <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">29-29.5—People who deserve top 20 speaker awards <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">28.7-29—A great performance. Will likely break and make it through several elims <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">28.5-28.7—Above average performance. Has chances of breaking or will be on the cusp of breaking. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">28-28.5—An average performance; may stand out in one area (technical skills, argument choice, warrant explanation, etc.), but lacks in the others <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">27.5-28—Needs to work on some of the basics <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">27-27.5—A performance marked by very poor sportsmanship or someone who really needs to work on the basics <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Below 27 — Reserved for unethical behavior
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">SPEAKER POINTS **