Kelley,+Brandon


 * Background:** I debated for 4 years for Rankin High School, and 4 years for Georgetown University, including at the NDT. I'm now the Assistant Director of Debate at Georgetown.


 * Edit 9/14/17 -** an updated version of my paradigm may be found here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=14327

__**Top-level thoughts**__ I'm fine with whatever you want to do. I think debate is a competitive game. I also think it has unique benefits. A dropped argument is a true argument, but two caveats: 1. to be complete, an argument must have a warrant; 2. you still have to persuade me that said argument being true means you win the debate. Prioritize __comparison__. Warranted clash will get you much further than mere repetition of your own claims. The below are defaults, but are all malleable if you win that I should adjudicate something differently. I will read cards, and tend to be a fairly truth-oriented judge, but the amount of weight I will assign to good evidence depends on how well you explain it in the final rebuttals.

I default to competing interpretations.
 * __Topicality__**

Reasonability should be framed as an argument that accepting the Aff's interp is best even if the Neg wins that theirs is marginally better (“infinitely regressive, they’ll always move the goal posts", etc etc)

T is a disad, a question of which view is better for debate. Win the link, then win the impact, and win that it outweighs.

You can definitely win on some random, strange interpretation if you out-debate your opponent, though I will say that if they provide contextual evidentiary support, explain why that's key to predictability, and explain the implications of (un)predictability for things like limits and ground, that tends to be very persuasive.

Debate is political - but it is not THE political. It does have important implications for the way we think, and what we say and do, but that's true of both “traditional”, policy analysis oriented debate, and other approaches.
 * __“Clash of Civs”__**

That means a couple things: 1.) I agree that debate affects us. 2.) I will listen to whatever you have to say, and am totally open to d ebates that question the traditional understanding of what debate is or should be. 3.) By the same token, I think that going for topicality and framing things in terms of limited stasis, predictability, debate, and why those things are good puts you in a great spot.

Essentially, whatever stance you take, do your thing and do it well.

Note: Absent agreement by both teams, I will flow speeches, but that’s NOT code for “you must read cards”. That said, have a reason why you're doing what you' re doing the way you're doing it.

Super strategic.
 * __Counterplans__**

The idea that they have to be non-topical is silly (but I guess, as with anything, winnable).

High-tech, hyper-specific PICs are really awesome and some of the coolest debates ever, while generics are a vital tool in the toolbox.

I'm generally Aff leaning on consult and conditions theoretical issues, and Neg leaning on conditionality. That said, the flow speaks for itself – an Aff win on Condo Bad or a Neg win on Consult China are each totally doable.


 * If you go for a conditional CP in the 2nr and I decide the plan is better than the CP but worse than the squo, I WILL NOT kick the counterplan for you __UNLESS YOU TELL ME TO__. I think the reasons for me to kick it and compare to the squo make total sense, but the 2ar should have a heads up that that calculus will happen. __DO NOT FORGET__ to tell me this if you want it to happen.

Impact comparison is essential. Turns case arguments are strategic, but way more so if made at the internal link level. Unless the DA is linear, direction of uniqueness probably determines whether the link is possible.
 * __Disads__**

I'm somewhat familiar with most common K authors. I'm definitely willing to listen to anything, even if its something I'm unfamiliar with. Good K debates are cool. Poorly executed K debates are mindnumbing.
 * __Kritiks__**

Understand what you're saying, clearly articulate it (in the phraseology of the author is fine, but what you're saying should still make sense) and things will be much more likely to go well for you.

As the Aff against the K, please be able to defend your assumptions/epistemology/method - "K's are cheating" is not persuasive (but //do// call out the cheating tricks - utopian fiat, floating piks, no V2L, etc).

Speaker points will vary relative to the division (novice/JV/varsity) and quality of tournament/competitors. Generally, assuming a varsity round at a national tournament:
 * __Speaks__**

Almost never give a 30, because speeches aren't perfect. 29.5+: Top-of-the-line performance 29 - 29.5: Excellent - strategically, tactically, and in terms of delivery 28.5 - 29: This is a good team debating well 28 - 28.5: Medium-to-good debating 27.5 - 28: Low average-to-medium debating 27 - 27.5: Major issues that need to be addressed presentationally, strategically, and tactically. Will do my best to point these out and help with them. This is really rare. < 27: Something really offensive was done/said, or something along those lines -- this will generally be coupled with a very clear, contextual explanation. I've never had to do this.