Sabino,+Lauren

his philosophy is new because I feel like I should update it now that I judge more. I think I’ve formed some stronger opinions on what I want to see and how I evaluate things, so here you go:

For those of you who don’t know me, I debated for Wake Forest University (four years, China to Agriculture). I used to coach for UNT. I now coach for SMU.

General: I have had a number of debate experiences and argument styles over the years. I went to a small school for high school and a big school for college. First and foremost, I understand that you do what you do and you have the evidence you have. I’d like to see what you’re best at, not what you think I’ll like. What follows are basically some free advice for making me like whatever you have better:

Theory: I err negative on most/all counterplan theory. I can’t really think of a single theory objection that merits the rejection of the team, not just the argument, but obviously this depends on the debate. This doesn’t mean it’s open season – just because I think a counterplan is fair doesn’t make it competitive. I’m much more persuaded by competition arguments than fairness arguments. In this same vein, I’m a harder sell on “normal means” counterplans. As long as the plan is still topical, I think the aff can be done “abnormally.” That said, if you want to do this, get a verbal concession of “we will defend ‘x’” and that may help.

The one caveat: If you want to go for theory, I’m persuaded by logical policymaking arguments such as “No single decision-maker is in the position to decide between US action and Japanese action” or something like that. Those impacts make more sense to me than “we had to spend time on this argument and that hurts my feelings/debate is hard/etc.” If they kick an abusive counterplan, no theory objection other than “conditionality bad” is a voting issue. No one loses a debate just because they introduced an argument.

T: Topicality is always a voting issue, and I evaluate predictable limits as the impact to most/all standards. I am not very persuaded by “our aff is big and a lot of people read it, you knew about it, we still link to politics, etc.” I believe in competing interpretations (except its most absurd and illogical extremes) as the gold standard for evaluating T, and I think any aff could be proven non-topical in a particularly well-debated topicality debate (as in, I do not automatically presume anything to be topical). The caveat here is reasonability certainly has its place insofar as weeding out the aforementioned absurd and illogical extremes, such as “T and/or means and” or some other such ridiculousness.

Disads/Case: Read these. I’ll like them. Politics 4 life.

CPs: Above—competition matters, logical policymaking matters, and an assessment of the magnitude of the solvency deficit/ability to solve the case in terms of the risk of the net benefit is really important to me. Important note: I do think the nature of the topic and/or existence of a solvency advocate for the counterplan can justify certain counterplans that I may not be as fond of (consult, etc.)

K’s : I’ve been told that I’m either too k-friendly for my judging philosophy or not k-friendly enough. I’m not going to weigh in on this because I feel like either could be true depending on how you debate the k. Here are some things you need to be able to do in order to win a k in front of me:

1. Explain your alternative in a way that makes sense to me – i.e., I need to know how it resolves the links beyond “we cause a consciousness shift”, what the role of the ballot is, etc. I probably have a higher threshold than some for alternatives that are never really explained in any detail, and reading alternative evidence hardly ever clarifies this for me.

2. TALK about the aff. I need to hear why their specific plan/representations link, not just “they talk about security, security is bad, boo security.” That’s too abstract for me. I’d much prefer hearing about their specific rhetoric and why that’s problematic. This has the added benefit of allowing YOU to make distinctions about why their generic “security good” offense does not apply.

If you’re answering the k, don’t freak out. Also, don’t just assume that ‘framework’ arguments link because the other team read a k. WHAT did they do that violates your framework? WHAT should I do to remedy this? Should I get rid of the alternative? Should I allow you to weigh your aff? Should I vote aff? Should I allow you to sever representations? Try to stick to something I can quantify, not something like “give us leeway on the perm.” I’m never sure what qualifies as leeway.

Performance: I think it’s interesting stuff. I find my frustration with performance is not the NATURE of the argument but the lack of any attempt to defend SOMETHING, ANYTHING as a starting point for discussion. If the other team is making responsive arguments and you are just telling them they “don’t get your Heidegger,” I will hate you. If you answer those, right on.

Stylistically/Random: I’m faithful to my flow and I’m big on protecting the 2NR. Explain your evidence. I don’t like reading a big stack of cards after a debate that you aren’t explaining, and I probably won’t do that. A mediocre piece of evidence with a lot of great spin and impact analysis is going to beat an on-fire card you never explain. I don’t think you are under any particular obligation to be overly nice, not use certain language (with obvious exceptions—hurtful or racist speech is NOT okay), or to reign in your killer instinct, but yelling, freaking out, etc just makes me think you’re kind of irritating. Treat your opponents with RESPECT, and there is a difference between niceness and respect.

Paperless: I think paperless debate is awesome and really cost-effective. If you are paperless, go you. I understand the transition is rocky, it sometimes kind of sucks. I’ll try to be understanding. Here’s some caveats:

1. It’s up to you to have all the equipment necessary to be paperless and for it to be working. I know computers crash, stuff breaks, etc, but you only get so much “magic time” (thanks to Andrew McCarty for this phrase) before it’s your prep time. “Magic time” begins once a speech is on a jump drive. If I notice that it’s going forever, I’ll usually open with “What’s going on right now?” If it continues, I’ll start charging you prep again. If I see you or your partner prepping during the jumping, etc. process, you will no longer receive any magic time for the duration of the debate.

2. You still need to flow. If you need evidence jumped to you, that’s cool, but if you have their evidence and want their blocks or something, that’s YOUR prep time.

3. If you are debating a paperless team, they have provided you with resources for viewing their speech (netbook, etc.) and you want it in a different format (i.e. printing it), that’s your prep time.

Be tricky, be smart, and have fun!