Caminer,+Mitchell

Northside College Prep 2012 Northwestern 2016 (not debating) Coaching and judging for Northside

Feel free to ask questions before and after the round.

General things: This is my first year judging varsity debate. I tend to favor tech over truth, especially w/r/t dropped arguments. I will judge roughly one tournament a month, hence my topic knowledge will be average at best. Please, for the love of god, do what you do well, it will be far more persuasive than something you haven’t prepared well.

Affs: I read all sorts of different affs in high school, from no plan K-affs to Iran Prolif. I am probably more comfortable in a debate where the aff defends a plan, but not so ideologically inflexible that I will ignore your project aff. Please use the 2AC effectively, I can’t stress how many debates are won and lost there. Add-ons, theory arguments, and offense are all useful, no matter how silly they may seem.

Topicality: No prevailing bias here. Too often aff teams ignore neg offense and get bogged down in the reasonability/we meet debate. It’s a better use of your time to win offense.

Critiques: They’re strategic when deployed properly, and I generally think it is one of the toughest arguments to deploy effectively. That said, if the aff fails to engage the central arguments of the K, it can turn into a blowout fast. Reading cards about why X doesn’t come first is more persuasive to me than framework arguments.

Counterplans: By all means. They can super strategic, and while I might be temporarily miffed at you reading some generic, cheating counterplan, I understand. Here’s where I stand on CP theory issues, I can be persuaded to think otherwise:

Probably Legitimate: Agent CPs, States, PICs, Dispo. Agnostic: International Actor, Consult, Condition, Word PICs, Condo. Probably Illegitimate: Process, Veto Cheat-o.

Disads: They’re obviously an important source of offense. It’s important to control the direction of the impacts (which turn which).