Lacy,+Mike

I'm pretty open to anything - wipeout/spark is about where I draw the line - anything past that (time cube, etc.) usually fails the "is this a full argument?" test. All of the following things about me are my natural tendencies that I rely on when issues are otherwise unresolved, but in almost all cases I can be convinced otherwise if an issue is well debated.

Tech vs truth - I'm primarily a tech guy. Truth still matters somewhat - arguments need a claim and warrant and I'm going to call for some evidence at the end of the debate, but smart analytical args + spin is hugely important for how I read evidence. I've definitely made some quick decisions on technical mistakes so make sure to answer arguments like "turns case" and "counterplan leads to the plan" in the 1AR, even if you know your evidence is infinitely better.

Offense/defense - is how cost-benefit analysis gets done. I'm into things like economics and poker so the concept of expected value dictates how I think about decisionmaking. Probability x magnitude generates the greatest good over the long run, so that's how I will weigh aff offense vs. neg offense. I'm still willing to vote on zero risk of a disad, I don't understand how that's incompatible with offense/defense. The mainstream alternative framework is deontology, but I'm pretty easily convinced that deontology quickly collapses back into consequentialism - if spending taxpayer dollars is unethical, and letting people die is unethical, how do I weigh the aff's extinction impact against the coercion DA? Again, I can be persuaded that some other ethical imperative comes first. However, of all my proclivities this is definitely the strongest and hardest to overcome - I just really don't get arguments like "X random thing is an ethical priority that justifies ignoring every other consequence" or "the risk of the disad is very low, so just ignore it".

FLOWING - has gotten worse and worse. I judged a debate last year where 1 team dropped a few impact turns because they weren't in the other teams speech document. The 2AR made a big deal about how the neg didn't jump them the extra cards and didn't tell them they had read extra stuff, etc. It would've been easy to feel sympathy for the aff here, but I simply didn't at all. The flow is the record of what arguments count and what don't - not the speech document. Flow better.

Speed/clarity - debate is a communicative activity. If I don't comprehend an argument then I'm not going to flow it. I'm not sure who the source of this quote is, but it's great advice: "Speed is the number of arguments you make that the judge thinks the other team has to answer".

Topicality - I like T and I think it's under-utilized. The most important thing that's usually missing from T debates is comparative impact comparison between the aff and neg's best offense (i.e. limits outweigh aff flex, etc.). The other important thing to note for me is that I've only judged a few debates on the space topic so I'm not very familiar with what affs people are reading, what T args are generally accepted, etc.

Theory - Like T, I think theory is under-utilized. Unlike T, I'm not a huge fan because these debates rarely occur in an aesthetically pleasing way (fast, blippy, no impact comparison, contrived interpretations, etc.). I'm not the best judge for conditionality (2N at heart), but I'll still vote on it. I think I'm more easily sold on arguments like Int'l Fiat bad, Agent CPs bad, etc. A dropped theory argument can usually be recovered from - if the 2AC says "conditionality is a voter - skews the 2AC and pre-round conditionality solves" that's not a full argument and I think the 2NR can pretty easily justify making new responses (though they do need to do the work of justifying it - it's not automatic).

Counterplans - I don't have any steadfast notion of counterplan competition. Seems like most counterplans these days compete off certainty or immediacy, and I think there's a good debate to be had about whether or not that's a good standard for competition. The biggest thing usually missing in these debates are normative reasons to support your interpretation. Normally both teams just read a bunch of definitions of words in the rez/plan without giving reasons for why competition OUGHT to be that way. Also, if the 2NR extends a CP or K and doesn't make arguments for why I should kick it for them, my natural tendency will be to only evaluate the advocacy they've extended. For example, if the 2NR goes for a agent counterplan and politics, and the 2AR wins perm do the counterplan, I'm going to vote aff. If, however, the 2NR makes arguments for why I should kick the counterplan for them, I would evaluate the status quo (politics vs. case).

Kritiks - mostly fine. I'm decently familiar with most literature, but don't get too crazy - I need to be able to simply understand your argument, even if it's a reductionist form of it. If I can't explain to the other team why they lost, I'm not going to vote on your craziness. I'm somewhat of a checklist K judge - if the neg block clearly flags an argument like value to life, a floating pik, etc. and the 1AR drops it, then it's a pretty tough spot for the aff (again, I'm a tech guy). The flip side of that is that if the neg isn't winning any of their tricks, I'm good for the aff on case outweighs/try or die/alt fails.

Have fun! Debate is a game - enjoy it!