Friedman,+Jordan

I debated for Rowland Hall in high school for 4 years and I'm now a freshman debating at USC.

I think that debate is a forum for you to argue what you want to argue, and I will evaluate any kind of argument. That doesn't mean that I will particularly enjoy the arguments that you make, but I will be willing to listen.

1. Don't be a jerk in debates. That's a nonstarter for me. Being aggressive and indignant is fine, but know the line. 2. If you're fast and clear, that's awesome. But don't try and be faster than you are. Err on the side of clarity. 3. Thoughtful and well articulated evidence comparison will be rewarded. 4. Don't steal prep- it's really annoying. Especially if you're stealing prep because you're too disorganized to keep track of your stuff.

Topicality - I do not have a default framework for evaluating T. I think it is your job to articulate a framework for me to vote for, and I will not be particularly happy if I'm given no frame for how to make my decision. I like bigger picture topicality discussions in the rebuttals- it's really difficult to try and just resolve line by line. I think impact calculus between standards is crucial, and where these debates are won and lost. Don't just extend "education is the biggest standard in the round, judge." Comparative analysis is clutch.

Theory - Same framework evaluation above. I think multiple conditional advocacies are okay, more than 3 is maybe pushing it, but I'm willing to listen. I like theory standards other than abuse, particularly when the negative is clearly not being abusive (i.e. one conditional advocacy). Theory is not my favorite thing to judge, especially when you're going full speed through a theory block, but I do respect a debater that recognizes where he or she is winning and losing. Be clear and don't get hung up on the line by line. I also think I'm more willing to vote on dropped intrinsic and severance arguments than most (assuming there is a clear claim and warrant).

Disad/case debates - I like these debates, and think solid impact calculus is particularly important. I'm more than willing to vote on well explained defense.

K - Contextualize the k to the aff. Do not want to hear a generic state is always bad k with no explanation of the aff. I like role of the ballot claims and want to hear a well articulated alt. It's pretty obvious when you have no idea what your alternative does. It's probably unlikely that I will vote on framework claims that exclude the K from debate.

CP - I'm a fan of well researched and specific CPs. I like shady/generic CPs less (i.e. consult, process, etc.). I'm definitely receptive to CP theory in those instances. I think affs let the neg get away with a lot of stupid stuff, and I don't think that should happen. That being said, if they let you get away with it, go for it.

If you have specific questions, feel free to ask.