Dale,+Avery

Avery Dale - Walter Payton College Prep
I debated at Woodward from 1999-2002 and Northwestern from 2003-2006. I coached for Woodward in 2007, and have been doing occasional volunteer judging in Chicago for the past few years. This season (the space topic) I am coaching for Walter Payton.

I try my best to evaluate each debate based on the arguments in the round, but that's easier said than done, so if you'd like to know my opinions on various types of arguments, here you go..

In general, I prefer watching a substantive in-depth debate on a few arguments rather than a shallow debate on many. I'm always pleased to see a cohesive negative strategy (as opposed to a set of unrelated arguments to fill the 1nc). The same goes for an affirmative team that develops a macro vision for how they want to win the debate rather than debating each flow like they don't relate to each other. A good last rebuttal in front of me definitely includes some big picture arguments rather than giving another 1ar/1nr (and included in that is some comparative impact analysis). Similarly, I'm much more interested in the debater's arguments/warrants than the quantity of your evidence - you'll get farther reading a couple good cards plus adding more explanation / warrants / evidence comparison than you will you reading an extra card or five on an argument. Similarly, I encourage teams to make smart analytical arguments - the scenarios people run in debate rounds are often outlandish / missing obvious internal links / etc., and you should not shy away from making those arguments just because you don't have a card.

Topicality - The more specific you can get when debating topicality the better. A good case-list goes a long way for either team. I can be persuaded either way on the reasonability vs competing interpretations question, but I do think the aff probably needs a counter-interpretation that has a limiting function on the topic in order to have a shot at being reasonable. And T is hard to outweigh if I am your judge. I think the Aff should read a topical plan and defend it - you will be fighting an uphill battle on the aff if your strategy against T involves saying that T is bad or that something else is more important.

DAs – Very good. I think the link question determines the risk of a disad more than uniqueness does. A good disad has a specific link to the plan. In extreme cases I can be persuaded by all defense from the aff - there isnt always a risk of a link, if you want a risk, win your link.

CPs - Always good to see a well-crafted counterplan - I'm not a huge fan of process CPs, but do what you have to do. I was surprised to see how common it is for teams to read 2+ CPs in debates these days. I always thought I was on the negative side of the theory debates, but I'm not so sure anymore.

Critiques – I did not run many of these when debating, and haven't read the literature for whichever K you want to run. The more specific the kritik, the better – specific link to the plan as opposed to the system the plan operates in, specific explanation of an impact as opposed to a vague claim that extinction is inevitable, specific explanation of how the alternative solves, etc. If you can do that, I am a fine judge for you. I generally think that framework in K debates is overrated – it's fairly hard to convince me that either side shouldn't get to weigh their impacts in a debate.