Thompson,+Jacob

Jacob Thompson, Director of Debate, University of Nevada, Las Vegas—8 years coaching.

I see my role in the round as that of an adjudicator and critic of argument. I will try to be as neutral as possible, but everyone has certain predispositions, so here are mine… I should note that I frequently have voted against the arguments I prefer and I have voted for arguments that I dislike. Debate is facilitated by fiat, the mutual agreement that we will discuss whether or not the plan should be done. Fiat is concerned with the merits of the affirmative plan. Playing this game is an ideal forum for us to educate ourselves, have fun, and train the opinion leaders and policy makers of the future.

Negative Strategy--I prefer, ideally, to listen to large well researched-case specific debates with specific disadvantages (or generic disadvantages with specific links and a good story) a strategic PIC, and some consistent critical arguments. I believe in preserving maximum strategic and theoretical flexibility for negative teams. Contradictions aren’t always a bad thing early in the debate, as long as the block boils it down and the 2NR is consistent. Topicality—Generally, I don’t like judging T debates… I’d much rather listen to other things, although I understand that it is important to get rid of patently ridiculous affirmatives. I believe that topicality is a question of competing interpretations (not necessarily of competing evidence). I am not persuaded by T is not a voter, or “reverse voting issue” arguments—to win this in front of me the neg team would essentially have to drop a very wll developed 2AC argument and the 1AR and 2AR would have to do a very good job on the argument. The best way to win a T debate in front of me is to prove actual abuse, although evaluating T as a question of competing interpretations means that I necessarily must consider potential abuse. I will vote on Extra-T (see plan flaw arguments).

Affirmative Strategy—As a debater, I typically ran huge middle of the road cases with big impacts. On this topic I believe that “flight to the right” affirmatives can be incredibly strategic. I think plan wording is VERY important; it’s sacred for negative pre-round prep and strategy. A miswritten plan typically means that the affirmative team will lose (as long as the negative team argues the importance of correct and precise plan wording). I will vote on plan flaw arguments and 1 word PICS. I think more affs should straight (link or impact) turn disads. A good 1AR should try to bury the 2NR by reading plenty of evidence, covering, and always using offense. For the 1AR and 2AR I think it is important to extend warrants inside your evidence, doing more than just saying “extend the Smith ’02 evidence,” you should explain the importance/relevance/ implications of the evidence as well. Second I think a good 1AR will also give a judge some pen time to flow analytics (especially theory).

Critical arguments—I will vote for the K (whatever that means these days). I prefer specific criticisms with links that are specific to the aff, and an impact/implication that is explained in light of the aff harms/advantages. I prefer huge generic critical arguments much less. Arguments such as: fear of death or the aff can’t prove that there is a value to human life. I am naturally not predisposed to vote on certain critical arguments such as silence good, puppet shows, “we read poetry, so we win,” and anyone who says performativity and can’t explain what that means in terms of what I said above in relation to fiat. Affirmatives should always permute critical arguments, Negative alternatives/advocacies should have some discernable text (either one that you have written or a line or 2 in your evidence). I think that pragmatism, and certain Burke arguments are good affirmative permutations.

CPs—No 1NC is complete without a CP (or 2 or 3…run lots of them if you want). I am not opposed to consult CPs and generally think that they’re a pretty smart strategic strategy choice for the neg, especially when they have a solvency advocate. I believe that dispositionality is less abusive than conditionality. If you plan on just going for the CP anyway, just make it non-conditional. The text of the CP (and all perms) should be written out, and I hold them to as high a standard as I do the affirmative plan. I do not think that a negative team should be afraid to CP in the 2NC (it is a constructive, aff gets a CX, and the risk of a straight turn in the 1AR should check any abuse). These 2NC counter plans could be used to make external impact turns or uniqueness takeouts go away.

Other Things— 1) If I can’t understand you I will say “clearer” please just slow down a notch or speak more clearly. Start your speeches out slowly and build up to top speed.  If I have to tell you “clearer” more than 3 times I’m likely to stop trying to flow arguments that I can’t understand.

2) Debate should be fun, be nice and respectful to everyone involved.

3) Answer CX questions, don’t be evasive.

4) I give speaker points that may be a bit lower than the average judge. A just average 4-4 style debate will earn you a consistent 26 or 26.5.  I rarely give 29 or above… You have to be truly spectacular (one of the 5 or 10 best speeches I’ve ever seen) in a debate to get a 29.5.  Point inflation is silly, and this is me doing my bit to cut against it.

5) I will read cards after a debate, especially if the debaters don’t explain them. If a card doesn’t in my opinion pass the “laugh test” I am unlikely to buy that particular argument, even if the other team does not talk about it (although they should).

6) I keep a semi-running clock—if it’s not speech time it’s CX or prep (excluding road maps, time to find lost flows or evidence, or bathroom/water breaks). Don’t steal prep.

7) The “cheap shot…” I think that the best teams consistently win without making these arguments. They’re called “cheap for a reason.  I don’t like the idea of voting for a cheap shot, but at the same time, I don’t like the idea of voting for a team that drops stupid arguments because they weren’t flowing.  The bottom line is that if you have some development of reasons to vote for your cheap shot in an early constructive speech, and the other team blanks on it, you might win.  I am sympathetic to cheap shot answers that are cross applications from other theory flows.

8) The best debaters consistently do the following things:

a) Make evidentiary comparisons—“our evidence on X argument is better than theirs for the following 3 reasons.” These reasons may include, but are not limited to qualifications, recency, history is on our side, more complete/better warrants, etc.

b) Understand that they are not winning every argument and hedge against the arguments that the other team may be ahead on. Saying things like, “even if you don’t believe that we are winning argument X, we still win the debate, because…”

c) Engage heavily in impact analysis, making sure to compare your impacts to the other teams.

d) Remember that defensive arguments are still important, and that other teams often don’t give them the credence that they deserve. Dropping arguments like “economic declines don’t lead to war,” or “Russian military is a disaster can’t project any power now” may lead me to assign little to no risk to your argument.

e) Be deep on offensive arguments. A few well developed arguments in the block are typically better than 7 or 8 shallowly developed arguments.

f) Use analytic examples to back up their arguments that relate to the “modern-day real world,” and ideally are tied to the topic countries.

g) Are unafraid to make logical arguments forcefully, without necessarily using “cards” as evidence.

h) Really sound like they believe the arguments they are making; a good debater with a strong sense of advocacy is truly persuasive, and will get good speaker points. Whether or not you actually believe the shit you’re peddling is your own problem.