Pease,+Adam

Affiliations--Head Royce School, Pine Crest, Reed College Four years national circuit high school policy debate experience.

Updated 10/6/15 1. I am not the best flow in the world so clarity may be more important for me than it is with other judges. This is especially true for any analytic argument; it is probably in your best interest to slow down when you a theory argument, or something else that's really dense. 2. I'm not a huge fan of the "sassy" CX responses some people in debate love to give. Be respectful of one another and do your best not to sound like too much of an arrogant jackass. 3. Tech always outweighs truth. 4. Number arguments and do your best to line them up with previous speeches. 5. I seriously, seriously, dislike overviews. 6. All debate is performance, and every action taken in debate intimates a certain performative orientation. As a judge I am not just reflecting on the content of what you say but the form in which that content is packaged. Be conscious of the way your performance affects others in the room, and whether it is consistent with the arguments you are making. 7. I don't have the best topic knowledge, so extra explanation will go a long way.
 * Random / General notes:**

I am fine with pretty much any argument and I will do my best to limit my preferences. I went for politics and case for the majority of my debate career until the second half of my senior year when I began to go for the K. That said, here are some preferences:
 * Specific:**

I am on the side of competing interpretations but could be persuaded otherwise in certain contexts. Outside of that the only advice I'd give is that my topic knowledge is fairly bad, so it would be good to contextualize highly specific or topic-education oriented arguments for me.
 * Topicality**

I love DA's. Politics is great, other than that the more specific the better. Be sure to defend and explain the internal link story of the argument. Not much else to say.
 * Disadvantage**

**Counterplan** A specific advantage CP is my favorite kind of CP. I love specific PICs, but my tolerance for them and other process counterplans diminishes the more non-specific and small they become.

**Kritik** I am not a fan of many of the K debates I have been judging. For me, the kritik needs to prove a reason why doing the plan is a bad idea. It is not sufficient to prove that the aff is related to, or representative of, some problematic epistemology. Instead, the neg should explain how the action of the plan results in some material or ethical disadvantage; otherwise I feel as if the kritik has no impact. For me a specific link story and unique link turns to the case are critical. Kritiks do not need alternatives but they should have some kind of framework argument that explains how the aff results in bad education that the neg's performance resolves. Most bad K debates arise from people who do not think the kritik needs to be specific or responsive to the actual 1ac. For example, I am unlikely to be persuaded by a general criticism of security logic; however, I would find a specific criticism of the 1ac's deployment of security logic to be highly persuasive. Yes, I am fairly well versed in the literature for these arguments, but this just means I will hold you to a higher threshold for explanation.

After judging at a fair number of tournaments, I can honestly say that I vote on framework very frequently. I read many critical affs in high school. I am simultaneously conscious of the way that these approaches to the topic can be educational, or abusive. I think these affs often toe the line between important discussions and outright tangents. I think the resolution is important and I think some degree of stasis and consensus is important for discussion. This does not mean I think you __need__ to have a plan text. Rather, I believe that the affirmative should maintain a positive relationship to the resolutional action; the form that this can take is up to you. This is in many ways a gut check; if your aff is obviously an important discussion that articulates itself within the limits of the topic then I am more likely to approve of it. By contrast, if your aff gets up and says "fuck the resolution" I will become more sympathetic to negative arguments about fairness and predictability.
 * Critical Affs**