Atkins,+Amanda

Amanda Atkins 3 years debating (Liberty University) 3 years judging high school

I started as a novice at Liberty three years ago and have judged on and off for high school. In general, I think I am fairly open to hear whatever. I have not judged on this topic yet, so I will understand the concepts you explain well, in the case of acronyms, I might pull evidence to figure it out if its important. In general, however, I try not to pull much evidence as this is a communication activity - I **will not** pull every shell card and every extension you read to weigh against the entire 1ac. I much prefer to vote on the better explanation of the card than the better card I have to pull and read myself.


 * If, at the end of the round, I have to decide a key question on "my Johnson evidence is on fire on this point!" vs. "Extend my Miller card, it talks about that", **you are doing it wrong.**

I don't often think framework gets either side anywhere. Especially when it turns into "the aff loses for walking in" or, the related aff version "The neg can't have anything but a cp" after they already took 5 minutes to read a K. There are exceptions. If the aff doesn't do anything you can get links to, it might be your only choice. If the neg won't allow you to access your case until you give carded offensive justification for your dresscode, it might be framework time.
 * Framework -**


 * Performance** - if you want to do a puppet show or whatever craziness you had better set up a way for me to decide the round and win your framework. However, I think if the other team finds a way to meet your crazy framework better, you might be in trouble. Could be interesting either way. I also think the other side probably has leverage on framework, expecially if it is something they can't be ready to out-crazy you on.


 * Ks** - My current partner and I run with a T/K strategy fairly often, so I will be fine with listening to your K.

What this does not mean: 1. You should run a K for the first/second/third time to adapt to me. Don't do it. No one will enjoy themselves. 2. I understand your K by author's name. Probably not. Even if I do, I will only use the words you use to explain it in round to make my decision. If I can't use your words to explain to the other team why their aff is bad, I'm not going to do that work for you. 3. You should act like an arrogant jerk because the other team "Just doesn't get it, Judge!". Be nice. You might not get it either.

What this does mean: 1. If you are a K team, do your thing. Explain in real terms what your alt or K means and you'll probably be fine. 2. If you are a policy aff against a K team, do your thing too. I am the 2a on a policy aff, I also sympathize with you. But please find out what the status of the K is before you read your giant framework block, if they're going to let you have your aff there is almost no strategic value to this and it turns into "Ks bad", use that time to answer the K.

The short version is that I do vote on T. I don't think many of the Ks of T are very strategic, because I think the aff probably links to most of them too. I don't think that the neg has to run DAs and prove abuse, I think that's kinda dumb and certainly not strategic, I don't think Ts are always there for abuse, I think they're usually just strategic tools. I default to competing interpretations unless reasonability is dropped or really high tech explained. In general I don't think a small difference is enough to vote against a team, but if they say something in their plan text they have no offensive ground, fairness or educational reason to have there, I think they should be punished for it. I think in that case it probably does lead to better plan writing.
 * T**- The other half

Just like everyone else, I don't want to hear your 15 point 10 second block. Read three standards and actually make the arguements instead and I can be convinced. I am not so sure about spec arguments, but I think I can be won on them if the other team entirely blows them off or you really convince me you need this ground. I think a single conditional CP or K is probably legit. I also think some multiple conditionality is alright as long as the strat doesn't link to itself. I can, however, be convinced if you are winning it. I'm not a big fan of obscure consult or conditions CPs, and I might be suspect of a wildly abusive shifting K alt. The later I would even be ok with being in the 1ar, as the K has not had the time to wildly shift until the block. If the abusive position is kicked, I think often reject the arguement not the team is fairly legit.
 * Theory**-
 * Read this: I will probably not vote on RVIs. Maybe even if they are dropped. I think this is the cheap shot version of debate. Theory is one thing. Three words and a voter is another.**

DAs - The other two years of my college career have been very straight up. When I was a 2n we ran t/cp/da/case. Every time. So I understand your DAs too, and I will be very happy if you can get some fun specific link. I think you are in trouble when the aff's link turn is so far beyond the specificity of your evidence that they don't talk about the same thing. Other than that, I like DAs. The only disclaimer is politics, I am not a huge fan of your 3 minute Obama PC link wall or generic debate. I will listen and vote, but I'm not a huge fan.

CPs- I like cps, I think they have an important part of negs winning against well-played giant affs. I really like PICs out of important parts of the plan action/plan text, because I think if you do something you can't defend you should probably not do it. I do not think a crazy PIC like out of helping one random drug lord is predictable or fair. Consult or crazy conditions cps are a bit suspect, agent, actor, or different action CPs are usually legit. But again, I can be pursuaded otherwise.

Case- Oh the wonderful case debate. I think this is one of the hardest and most techy debates of all and I will like you if you are able to pull it off. If you win a substantial chance of case defense and chance of a case turn I think this is the same thing as winning case/da and I will vote on it. I think, in general, the aff that is able to pull specifics out of their cards to answer your evidence is in a good place or read new evidence that applies. But, if their cards do not address your attacks, I don't think the aff gets to "clarify" out of what you say their plan action does if their evidence doesn't support it and yours does