Jardina,+Anthony

2010-2011 Topic 4 Rounds Judged Some Coaching

I debated for four years at Dallas Jesuit. I then debated for three years at Northwestern. I helped coach Dallas Jesuit and Kennedy while in college. Coached Walter Payton after college. I use some simple guidelines when evaluating debates.

1) Specificity-If the argument is more specific, then you will do better. More importantly if you make your evidence more specific through “spin” or a story that will help. You are in a bad spot if I have to read a bunch of cards after the debate and think about where they belong and apply.

2) Quality of evidence-The evidence question is a big factor. Also the explanation and application of the evidence is just as important as the warrants contained within the evidence.

3) Link stories are very important to me. I am from the Duck school of thought on this issue. It is all about the link story that you tell.

4) Impact assessment and how debaters frame arguments is very important. It is a guide that helps me figure out who won or lost the debate.

5) I am unlikely to completely discount the other sides' story. Unless the other side is just factually wrong about an issue, something that I do not think happens that often in debate, I will give some credence to both sides' warrants.

More specifically

Topicality-I think that it usually comes down to competing interpretations and limits debates. I also heavily weigh realistic assessments of interpretations. Therefore the most limiting definition may not be the best for debate. I can be persuaded that it is though.

Spec arguments-I think they are strategic sometimes, but generally I don't like them. That does not mean do not run them, but have a story about why it is abusive given the nature of the affirmative plan.

Disads-The link story is critical for me as I mentioned above. Also the assessment of how the disad works in the new world of the affirmative plan is important. Critiques-How the impact actually affects the affirmative is important. Also if the ballot and framework questions arise, then explaining why my decision is important becomes an issue. This does not necessarily mean you can read your generic framework block and win the debate. A more specific application of framework and ballot questions, affecting the particular critique you are advocating, is the kind of analysis I am want to hear.

Counter plans-I tend to be very open to theory questions. It depends on the arguments made in the debate for me to determine how those debate rounds will be decided. If you decided that trading theory blocks rather than making arguments is the goal, then I probably will not even evaluate the theory debate.

Speaker points-Being nice is more important than making somebody look foolish and being mean. Get your point across, but do not make the room uncomfortable. I will reward those that are generally nice and don't interrupt their opponents during CX. Furthermore, I like evaluating the strategic decisions that debaters make. Good decisions will be rewarded with speaker points. Also, clarity and more than tag-line explanations of evidence (if you actually explain your evidence in the context of your opponent's evidence) will be rewarded.

K versus Policy-I think this is a silly question and will vote for the best argument. I am unlikely to vote for framework against most K's unless there has been a revolution in framework debates which there has not. You have to defend the basis of your policy. This is simpler than most people make it out to be.

Note about paperless debating A) Please flow. Just because people are paperless does not mean you do not have to flow. You will lose if you do not answer, for example, 2AC number 7 no link. B) Prep time stops when the flash drive is inserted into the viewing computer. C) Please do not be abusive and copy entire files into the speech document. That is cheating. Your opponents should not be forced to search for the cards you are reading because you are copying too much.

In the end do what you are good at. I have debated a bunch of stuff; there is probably nothing that I have not heard. Have fun.