Liang,+Larry

Hello everyone,

This will be my judge philosophy for the 2016 Novice/JV Western Champs. Currently, I am a high school senior who sporadically debates for Dougherty Valley. While I do think I am qualified to judge novice rounds, it's been about a year since I've done fast debate, so please bear with me. With that in mind, here are my preferences. - K's are fine - I vote on zero risk (substantially mitigated) - Condo up to 2 worlds - Most other theory arguments are default reject the arg (ie if you're gonna go all in, explain why reject the team) - High threshold for T - Please be respectful and courteous to everyone! Problematic language (eg. sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc) will not be tolerated, and will result in a speaker score penalty at best and an auto-loss at worst. - Clipping is an auto-loss, but there needs to be proof. - Please don't steal prep! Novices especially can be bad with this. Flashing doesn't count, but if you take more than 2-3 minutes, I will start prep. To combat this, I highly suggest using email chains instead.
 * Short Short version:**

This is probably what most of you are interested in. Short version is that K's both aff and neg are fine, but I'll need good explanation, especially for the high theory ones (Baudrillard, DnG, Heidegger, etc).
 * Critical Arguments**

For straight up affs debating Ks: Go for case outweighs first and foremost. Make sure you answer framework. Floating PIKs may be justification for the perm. Perm double bind is persuasive to me (but theoretically questionable).
 * Aff**: Do your thing, have a plan or don't have a plan, sing a song read a poem, talk about racism/sexism/homophobia/whatever but make sure it's clear by the end of the 2ac what your aff is actually doing/how it functions in the context of the round. I don't like voting on vague anything, and I will be extremely suspicious of aff solvency if I have no idea what the aff is or what it's trying to accomplish.

Framework can be a persuasive argument, especially with a topical version of the aff. If you do go for it, make sure you've answered their unique reasons for why institutional engagement is bad. I think K v K debates can be really interesting, but if neither side knows what they're doing, it can get really messy. Please do what you're best at and not attempt a radical new strategy that your coach threw at you in the 20 minutes of pre round prep. In these, I think the perm is the aff's best option, but they are theoretically debatable.
 * Neg**: I think alt solvency is the biggest issue I have with most Ks. If you don't win the alt, then there's a good chance the aff outweighs. K turns case arguments can be compelling, but make them specific to the aff rather than just a generic "cap leads to war" card in your 2nc overview.

Go for it, but keep in mind that I do think zero risk is very possible - good defense on bad internal links is enough to sway me. This also goes for poorly constructed aff advantages.
 * Disads**

Solvency is probably really important. Severance/intrinsic perms are only bad if you call them out. I generally have a high threshold for theory as a round winner, but if the other team doesn't answer it well, by all means go for it. Alternatively, just go for reject the argument to still have some good leverage. Lean neg: Agent, advantage, PICs, Lean aff: Consult, Process, word pics, etc
 * Counterplans**

Slow down when you read your T shells! I'm not too great at flowing, and I don't want to miss an entire standard or 3 because you blitzed through the whole shell in 20 seconds. While I think most T interps are arbitrary, I default to competing interps. Please have a counter-interp, or else it will 99% be game over for you. Impact calculus is extremely important when you're giving a 2nr or 2ar on T.
 * T**

Condo good up to 2 worlds. Anything over that probably means there was some degree of abuse that provides legitimacy to the generic condo bad args most aff teams run. Vague alt theory should be spun as a solvency press, not a reason to reject the team. please no aspec or any spec really (i will buy that cx checks and move on)
 * Other Theory**