Holland,+John

John Holland Emory University

I haven't updated this in forever and I think my views have changed a fair bit. I've judged only a handful of rounds on this topic so that may change how you debate T or some cp competition questions.

Short version: -Ideal 2nr is some combination of impact turns, politics, case or an adv cp. -Ideal 2ar is case/impact turns outweighs the neg offense. -Tech over truth. Drops are true. I think of debate as a game.

T -The aff should be topical, read a plan, etc. I think this creates the most productive debates and is necessary for the neg to have predictable ground. -I think T is likely a question of competing interpretations. Usually the neg wins because the aff is light on an offensive reason for why their aff should be included (whether it be an education argument or because its the only aff that can beat the states cp).

Theory/Counterplans -Conditionality- 2 is good. More than 2 is iffy. I think its pretty unlikely that I'd vote aff if the neg only reads 1 cp. -Other theory arguments- reject the argument, not team solves everything but conditionality. -CPs that compete off certainty/things not in the plan- bad, go for the perm. -States- initially, I thought it terrible for debate, but I'm becoming more open to it. I think that is because no one is going for theory or because no one

goes for states because the aff has crafted a solvency deficit. -pics- yes. read them. The aff should remember that the words "all" and "every" are not in the plan text and should utilize that for permutations.

Kritiks -I went for the K 0 times vs policy affs while in college. -In order to win this on the neg, I think you have to win a turns case argument or an argument for why the alt solves the case. The 2ar that is coming and that

I find persuasive is "we have a big advantage that the alt doesn't solve" so the 2nr has to be geared to beat that. -Topic kritik (k of transportation infrastructure) > generic kritik (Nietzsche, Heidegger, etc).

Other -Impact turns. Yes. More of them. I like them and went for them a lot. A 1nr that is obscure impact turns to an addon (eg. water scarcity good or US-Russia relations bad) is great. -1AR impact turns- There's been a discussion about whether the 1ar gets to impact turn after link turning in the 2ac. I think its legitimate. -Most of my neg career involved a host of advantage cps and impact turns. Politics was most 1nrs. I would often concede a solvency deficit in the 2nc to make impact turns a net benefit. -1AR shenanigans in general- usually encouraged. Kicking the case to straight a turn a disad. One caveat- you need to slow down if you're doing anything weird thats not super apparent. -Ben Dean gives the best 2ars ever. If you've ever seen one, thats how to get high points from me.

Old Judge Philosophy I’m a freshman at Emory and debate. I debated 4 years at Grady in Atlanta, Georgia. Rounds on the hs topic- 35 General comments 1. 2NR/2AR comparisons are extremely important yet rarely done even at basic levels like impact calculus 2. I would love if every 2NR was a cp/politics or a case specific strategy. That’s what I like, but I know it isn’t always possible 3. Speed is fine, just be clear. 4. I can flow (mostly). This means I protect the 2NR from new arguments. 5. Offense/defense is king- it is possible to win “zero risk” of a disad, but that’s difficult so I think offense should always be extended in some capacity in the last rebuttal. Specific issues Theory- I err on the side of the team that risks losing. So for conditionality/pics, I err neg, severance/intrinsicness/perm theory I err aff. Theory debates are never pleasant for judges to resolve because the debaters generally do very little work and leave it in the hands of the judge to decide. This means if you want to go for theory in front of me, impact arguments. Consult and condition counterplans are probably cheating, but the neg can defend them. States cp- probably not legit, but no one seems to go for theory against it. I think a well written text solves most affs on this topic. Kritiks- not my favorite argument, but I have voted for them a few times this year. Framework debates are important, but never impacted. Pet peeve- the aff asks if they get to weigh case against the kritik, neg responds with “after you justify your representations.” I have no idea what that means. I also don’t think the neg should be allowed to sever representations without the aff being able to do so as well. Topicality- I’m not quite sure what is or isn’t topical as I haven’t researched the topic. I default to competing interpretations. If you go for reasonability, you should have a reason why your aff should be read on this topic (whether it’s the heart of the literature or something along those lines). I think the neg wins T debates because the aff doesn’t extend offense or even write their blocks to include offense.