Kaye,+Rich

Rich Kaye, two years Public Forum, in my second year as a policy debater at George Mason University

General: You can read whatever you want in front of me, as long as you make it easy for me to understand by the end of the debate. If I can't explain how your counterplan functions or how the alt can solve, I'm not going to vote for you.

That being said, I do highly prefer policy arguments, which means it will be easier for you to get me to understand them. I do understand a good amount of kritiks, so if you want to read your brand new K you cut for this tournament- go for it.

My favorite thing to talk about in debate is US hegemony. So if you defend that, please do well with it. If you decide to read heg bad I will evaluate it based off the flow.

Don't be a major jerk. I will dock speaker points if I think you're being unnecessarily rude (I do understand cross ex can occasionally be heated- If that's the case and it's justified I won't be docking speaks from either person)

How to get bonus speaker points Bow ties Funny jokes Just be a nice person Ask good questions in cross ex

How to lose speaker points Cheat Be a jerk Go for something/or say something offensive

Dropped arguments mean nothing if they're not explained. So extending a dropped argument and not telling me what it says or what it means does nothing for you. However if you do that, I'll give it very heavy weight. So don't drop things.

New analysis after the block is justified by new extrapolations of arguments or new arguments. If it wasn't new in the speech prior then don't make crazy new extrapolations. I protect the 2NR/2AR from these crazy new things. Which means if you make a totally new argument in the 2NR the 2AR has to spend little time answering it. If you go off on a tangent in the 2AR about something that wasnt in the 1AR then I will give next to 0 weight to those arguments.

Spreading is fine, but be clear please. I'll say clear twice and then start docking speaks.

Please ask questions if you're not sure about anything or are confused about anything.

Specifics: Topicality/SPEC args (Policy Affirmatives)

I really don't want to vote on any kind of specification arguments and "cross ex checks" is probably true. I will vote on this if it's dropped though.

I default to competing interpretations on topicality debates. I'm not going to make some random judgement about how you are "reasonably" close to the topic- you need to do that work yourself. However if you win that reasonability is how I should evaluate the round I will. To win your interpretation is better I need arguments for why your interpretation is good, and why the counter interp proposed by the aff is bad for debate (just winning one will not win you the topicality debate) I need affirmatives they justify and why those affirmatives are bad for debate (do you not get disads, counterplans, can you not have a good case debate?). Winning T requires good line by line and explanation, Im not gunna vote on T because "they dropped fairness" without an explanation of what that means.

Also, T is about what you justify. Although in-round abuse stories make it easier for me to vote on it.

Framework (Kritikal Affirmatives)

The role of the ballot should be to answer the resolutional question. Debate is a game and if the game isn't fair it can't be educational. I read framework as a college debater against teams that don't read a plan text, so I'd prefer this over some other random high theory, ivory tower K (if that's what you want to do, go for it). I believe both fairness and decision making impacts are viable options, and a T-version of the aff will greatly help your case. Just like T, explain all of your arguments well, tell me what you lose/what affirmatives they can read that are just abusive, and you will be fine. You do need to have some semblance of case mitigation to deny the aff access to impact turns they may read. If you read an advocacy I won't auto vote you down if the neg reads framework, but I definitely have a higher threshold for most typical answers to framework. Taking framework and taking it personally will not fly in front of me.

Other Theory (IE Conditionality)

The biggest mistake I've seen high school debaters make is that they never read theory against things like Consult Counterplans, etc. Please read appropriate theory against counterplans. If it's dropped and you adequately extend it throughout the round I will vote for you. If you think you have no chance and you take a hail mary on theory, make sure you do line by line, and explain why the world of debate they justify is bad. I am willing to listen to any sort of counterplan theory (consult cps, delay cps, international actor cps) are all probably abusive somehow. But prove that to me.

Vague alts and Floating PIKs should be read against kritiks. along with Framework (and these things never become reverse voting issues- ever)

Conditionality- it's bad. Okay. For me conditionality bad theory can be won if they read one conditional, if you do it well. The more conditional you read as the neg, the lower my threshold for voting on it goes. If you read more than 3, you're in dangerous territory.

Like every other theory, do line by line, impact this out, and I will vote on it. One dropped argument if you're aff can keep me from voting on this (IE don't drop key to test the aff, etc) Tell some sort of in round abuse story and I'll be more likely to buy this.

Disads

I love politics disads. A lot. So if you like to read and go for politics often, I am totally up for that. A good 1NR/2NR on politics will get you some nice speaker points, while a bad 1NR/2NR will earn you bad points. I like other disads as well, unless they're absolutely ridiculous. The more far fetched the disad is the lower threshold I have for the affirmative to win it. If you're going to go for a disad in a debate, the block needs to have some sort of impact overview that explains why your disad outweighs and turns the case. I don't wanna to have to think about which impacts outweigh at the end of the debate, I want you to tell me.

If you're the affirmative team, think of the disad as a chain. Break a part of the chain (or severely mitigate it in comparison to your case) or explain why I should prefer your impacts to that of the DA or how your case can solve back for it to win the disad debate. I do believe there is such thing as zero risk of a link or impact. If they drop arguments in the block make them the most important parts of your 1AR/2AR strategy, and explain why it matters (is it a no link, link turn, impact turn, etc.). Also I appreciate gutsy strategies. So if you think the block was on point and you think your only way to win the round is to kick case and go for link turns or impact turns- please do.

Uniqueness overwhelms the link is one of my least favorite arguments to answer disads. Make it in the 2AC if you want, but I will have trouble voting for it if the neg has any sort of sufficient response. Fiat solves the link- Don't even bother extending this in the 1AR if its not dropped. If someone makes it a voter, just say reject the arg not the team.
 * Note for politics disads

Counterplans

Be ready to defend the theoretical justification behind the cp. Explain how it solves the aff and what the net benefit is CLEARLY and you can win.

If you're answering a cp and you dont make a solvency deficit against it you're in trouble.

Kritiks

The more topic specific the Kritik is, the more I will like it. The more abstract and not related to the aff or the topic the K is, the less enthused I will be to hear it. So if your a strat is Baudrillard, make it apply to the topic. The block extension of the K should have an overview that explains what the link is, what the impact is, and what the alt does to resolve both of these things. If at the end of the debate I have no idea what your alt does I'm not voting for the K. Make link turns the case arguments as well. That will help you win my ballot. This is not meant to sound like I am anti-K; I want you to read them if you like them. If you're going to read the boredom K, or the "spreading is bad" K, you need a very good reason for me to vote for you. But I will and if you deploy the K well I will definitely reward you for it.

If your the aff and you read a policy affirmative, I love impact turns against the K. That being said, if you say things like "racism good" I will be very mad and probably not vote for you. If the link to the K isnt specific please point that out in your speeches. If you want to go for the permutation etc please do, its a viable strategy. Another big mistake aff teams make against the kritik is that they read a wall of cards. Please don't do that. Leverage your aff against it, make smart analysis about why your specific actions are good, and you'll be fine. If you are a kritikal team, obviously the permutation/no link/link turn strategy is your a-strat. That is equally fine. Explain to me what the world of the permutation looks like and why it can solve the residual links, or how the net benefits to the perm outweigh the disads to it and I'll vote for you.

Don't use buzz words on either side. Saying "cap is the root cause of everything" and then just moving on means nothing. Explain it and contextualize it to the affirmative.

Unless you give me a good reason to view otherwise I default to Util and/or Extinction outweighs. so make arguments against those if you read the K and that matters.

Finally, "you don't get a perm in a methods debate" is one of the worst things I've ever heard. The aff can make a perm, the neg should have to defend why the methods are mutually exclusive. Unless you can convince me otherwise, the aff can make and advocate for, and thus potentially win on, the permutation.