Zhu,+Marty

I debated for 3 years in high school. I graduated in 2014 and judged a little bit each year since then. I have judged every year since graduating though I have only judged one tournament (3 rounds) on this current topic (US Chinese engagement). This paradigm is being updated specifically for the Sylvania tournament. The previously version of this paradigm is still relatively accurate to my beliefs on how debate should be conducted. That being said, I have some specifics in context of what I see going on:


 * Topicality**:

Honestly, I don't think judges in Ohio are wiling enough to vote on topicality which is really upsetting when some affs definitely tend towards being extremely abusive. Strong topicality arguments to me are ones that are impacted out. The two most convincing arguments on the T flow are demonstrated ground loss and lack of literature which can be pointed out by the affirmative's lack of a true solvency advocate or similar.


 * Speaker Points:**

I very heavily favor the view of debate as a game. If I believe you are playing the game correctly, I will reward much more speaker points. The reverse is true.


 * Warrants:**

A lot of evidence being read is very tangentially related to the tag line argument. I value warrants highly so pointing things like this out are very effective arguments in my eyes. An affirmative that has a solvency advocate that does not meet the level of specificity required for the affirmative is pretty much dead in the water to me as it demonstrates a lack of lit basis.

From previous edits I've made, I decided to pick out my position on topics that are most likely to be relevant:


 * Generic Process CPs: **

The below does not apply to large predictable CPs referring to the three branches (e.g. XO) or anything that may be topically relevant enough to be incredibly predictable.

I choose to limit generic process CPs to the level of the aff's solvency advocate. I have a general distaste for obscure generic process CPs for the same reason articulated by David Heidt in his paradigm: "It’s really difficult to be aff because it’s too hard to predict what counterplan the negative will run. It’s not enough to have read every article about your affirmative; you also have to think of every contrived manipulation of fiat the negative will use or anything the negative can imagine that is supplemented by generic process evidence". Thus I believe it is only fair to hold the aff to whatever level their solvency advocate goes in terms of what the negative can contest, this way the affirmative has a possible way to argue against the CP in addition to not having to face an unreasonable research burden.


 * DA Analysis: **

Similar to the above, I find consistent link chains to be most compelling. Using multiple authors can often create a fake link based on key words. If your authors have two different concepts of what constitutes a significant deterioration of relations between Russia and the US for example, a link chain using these two authors is not a truly coherent link chain. It relies on finding the same words rather than the same meaning.


 * Kritik: **

Please know your stuff because I am not super familiar with all the literature. I think if you can go a full round without educating me at all about your kritik you probably can't access an education claim (this is a tautology but apparently several people don't get this). From FW, barring the affirmative conceding the entirety of the negative FW I will never default to a FW that precludes the weighing of the affirmative case. However a priori questions can give you more weight if you are clearly ahead on the debate. If the aff is only marginally losing on certain a priori questions but crushing the case debate then I would still vote affirmative. Otherwise I feel debates with kritiks would be very neg side biased with little risk for running a priori arguments but a huge payoff. I also think if I operate on a FW that forces me to only care about 20% of the main argument then the FW is probably stupid. Also please don't use your Kritik as a joke (satire and stuff is okay, I just mean with no argumentative intent) without substance - this seriously irritates me and I'll probably drop you for it. There's a difference between complex Kritiks with a seemingly outlandish claim and you running these as a joke without actually grasping what they mean.


 * Last remarks: **

As always, you can ask me any question about my preferences in regards to debate regardless of specificity and I'll most likely answer it. I generally don't take prep for flashing, I am fine with tag team cross-x.