Horn,+David

I debated four years in high school at Jenks in Oklahoma. I am currently in my second year of debate at the University of Michigan. My general presumption is that the debate should be left up to the debaters. For this reason there is no argument I won’t vote on. This also means that I prefer teams that do work for me rather than leave it to me to resolve issues. Specifics are always preferred over generics. Clarity should be preferred over speed. I will give the other team leeway in answering unclear arguments.

On the issues

Topicality: I probably default to competing interpretations. This means that explanation of standards and their impacts is key to making me pull the trigger on topicality. I enjoy a good/technical T debate. I will say that I haven’t judged much on this topic though, so if you are defining alternative energy, you may need to be very clear what you are excluding and including in your interpretation and don’t just assume I know what you are talking about. I prefer shorter overviews on T (and in general). Don’t extend your interpretation, standards, and voter in the overview then answer all their arguments. I think this only makes a cluttered debate. Overviews should be used to highlight nuances/flush out key parts of your argument or point out key concessions. If there is something disputed, I would prefer it argued on the flow itself. Case lists are nice but not essential. Limits and research burden sway me more than right to ground.

Kritiks: I am an aerospace engineer. I am by no means a philosopher. This doesn’t mean that I don’t understand or won’t vote for a K. I ran the K in high school and a lot this year in college. While I feel that I may not know what __ author says in some obscure book that was written one hundred years ago, but I understand how Ks act in debate and am perfectly willing to vote for them if properly impacted. Again I prefer specifics. Try to refrain from using only buzzwords.

CPs: Theory is fine but it has to be impacted. If left to my own devices I will default conditionality good. PICs are awesome, the more specific the better. Any minor distinctions that prevent CP solvency need to be flushed out so that it is clear. Advantage CPs can be very strategic. I enjoy CP debates. I am okay with Consult CPs but I will vote on theory against them if the aff wins it and impacts it well.

DA/Case: Love this strategy. Coming from the Josh Hoe, Aaron Kall, and Whit Whitmore school of thought at the University of Michigan this may be one of the most fun rounds to judge. A good technical case/CP and DA debate is sure to give you speaker points you are happy with. I don’t always believe that you have to have offense against a DA or case to win. Good defensive arguments are often overlooked. For the neg, if there is enough defense on case that the risk of an impact is minimal and DA risk is high, the round will be an easy decision for the neg. The same is true for affs on DAs. Though, offense is obviously great also. Impact analysis and evidence comparison is vital in this kind of a debate. Small distinctions in this context can win you the round.

Finally, I try not to read evidence at the end of rounds. I will try to let the debating influence my decision. I think I should only have to call for cards if there is a highly contested issue that has to be resolved to render a decision and wasn’t resolved by either team. This goes back to my earlier point that the best thing to do in front of me is to make my life easier by doing work for me. Good jokes can only improve your speaker points.