Schmidt,+Adam

Adam Schmidt Debated at Georgia for 5 years Debate at Chattahoochee for 4 years **A few general comments** I have not judged much on the high school topic much at all this year and do not have too much experience judging generally. On this topic I have judged about 15 debates but did debate on a similar topic in college. I will work hard to try and make a good decision, I understand how important debate and this tournament is. Go for what you are winning and do what you are good at before doing what you think I want to hear. You’ll have a better chance of winning if you do. My non-verbals are usually pretty informative about what I think of your arguments so try and look up. Final general comment I have is that I have been a 2a for the majority of my career. Not saying that it drastically affects the way that I judge but it probably makes me more susceptible to theory or no risk of a net benefit then one might expect. **The specifics** __Topicality/Theory__ - If you have another option that you think you are winning in a debate I would go for something else; however, if it is your only option or your best option go for it. I really like T debates but I tend to hold the team going for the theoretical objection to a very high standard. I find the problem with a lot of T debates is that they are not impacted well. For example the aff might win that reasonability is the standard to evaluate T, but no one ever really says what that means. Or for the negative they could win that there interpretation is “more limiting” without explaining why the types of affirmatives that are limited out are bad. I lean pretty negative on most theory issues and aff on most T issues. __Counterplans/Disads__ - The type of debate that I know the most about and the type I am most comfortable judging. The more specific to the affirmative the better. Although I really hate the “only a risk” model of debate I find that affirmatives often let the negative get away with framing the debate that way. The easiest way to make me vote affirmative against a cp/da or da/case strategy is to pick an advantage that the cp cannot solve or does solve as much that is bigger, faster, or allows you to control terminal uniqueness to the negatives impact. I think condition and consultation counterplans are ok, pics or advantage counterplans are better. __The K__ - I do not read the literature and almost never went for it. That does not mean that you should not if that is what you are best at. I tend to think of them as counterplans with net benefits. If the alternative goes unanswered I’ll probably end up voting negative. If your K is based off of plan action I am more likely to be persuaded by it. I generally think reps K’s are silly because they at best they prove that a particular representation is bad not that the plan or any of the other advantages are bad. But dropping arguments like representations come first will lead me to vote negative. __Performance__ - I think that affirmatives should have topical plans and defend the implications of those plans.