Andra-Thomas,+Misha

I am a Senior at Pace Academy.

Obviously, my job is to evaluate the debate as debated. While I may personally disagree with an argument, generally, you are better off debating as you normally would rather than making drastic changes to how you debate to accommodate some personal bias I may have. In fact, I value the practice of debating more than the content of the debates themselves. For that reason, I try to be impartial and would consider myself a tech over truth judge. Yet, I find the 'truth quality' of an argument to still be highly relevant.

After having wittnessed teams clearly more conforatable reading a certain set of arguments attempt to for arguments they are not conforatable with to adapt to a judge, I can say with a degree of certainty that you are better off doing whatever you can execute best.

Specifically, I believe that the literature base should guide the topics of debate. Contrived arguments (most process counterplans, generic kritiks, politics, ete) that aren't supported by the literature derive from the educational value of debate because they would require the affirmative to not only know everything ever written about their aff, but also every contrived argument too. Counterplans must have a solvency advocate comparable to the aff's solvency advocate (a natural implication of which is that if the aff is not advocated in the literature, then the counterplan doesn't need to be either). Defining "should" and "resolved" doesn't make a counterplan competitive. Saying "you could have found say no evidence to our unpredictable, contrived counterplan that isn't in the literature base relevant to the affirmative" doesn't mean that this is a reasonable, let alone productive, standard for the aff. Disad links should be specific to the aff (especially given link uniqueness on the China topic). High quality evidence carries significant weight, but only if impacted within the debate round itself.

Recognizing that having specific strategies to every affirmative is not quite possible, having a limited topic that allows the negative to be able to research strategies to most affirmatives is important. Again, the literature base should play a central role in topicality debates. What affirmatives do each interpretation allow? Are there solvency advocates for these affirmatives? Are these affirmatives strategic/would they realistically be read? These are the sort of questions each team should aim to resolve, yet rarely do. Both teams should be reading cards to support those arguments, which again, rarely happens. Although the sheer number of affirmatives that would be read under a particular interpretation is obviously a relevant concern, more discussion should be given to how these affirmatives relate to the core topic controversy. Do these affirmatives address core topic controversies? Do topic disads apply to these sort of affirmatives, or would the negative need to prepare an entirely new strategy entirely unrelated to the core topic literature base? Again, evidence may be needed here. Yet, I don't think that the negative has to win that there are a large number of affs that they exclude--winning that the aff justifies one particular devastating aff that teams may realistically read may be sufficient. Correspondingly, the aff could win that the neg excludes important aff areas that should be discussed and that a limits explosion is unlikely. Increasingly, I find reasonability to be persuasive, especially when the neg doesn't have much evidentiary support, but only if the aff wins that the negative's interpretation is an arbitrary exclusion of the affirmative, and that there is very small risk of the negative's offence. Limits and ground are not terminal impacts---explain why they matter.

In terms of theoretical objections, condo is good (within reason), and most other arguments are reasons to reject the team. But, if there is a PIC/process counterplan (without a solvency advocate in the context of the aff) extended in the block, I can be persuaded that the time investment to win theory,deterrent effect, irreparable skew on the 1AR, ete mean it is a reason to reject the team, but only if it is impacted as such. Don't even bother saying no neg fait, reverse voting issue, ete. Severance may be bad, but it is not a voting issue. I will not vote on cheap shot theory arguments even if they are dropped.
 * A brief note on interpretations: they matter. If the aff says 1 condo is ok, then they need to advance standards that 1 condo does not trigger, but the neg does. Correspondingly, the neg needs to advance standards that allowing one conditional option would not solve. Responding to a theory argument with no consideration of the interpretations advanced is almost always a mistake.

I don't really like process counterplans or agent counterplans and I am not a fan of most kritiks. In these debates, the aff should talk about the aff and the neg should also be talking about the aff. Please have a case specific link story. Affirmative teams should not let the negatives explanation deviate from their evidence. The threshold for floating pic explanation is high--if the explanation wasn't clearly established or was pretty vague, any 2NR extrapolation justifies new 2AR responses. To often, I find that judges will hold a different threshold for what constitutes a credible argument in a critical debate than they do in policy debates; k tricks (root cause, vtl, extinction inevitable, serial policy failure, ete) need to be supported by evidence, and that evidence needs to actually make that argument. If there isn't a card that says extinction inevitable, then I am not voting on it. (Note: this is not to say that you should drop these arguments or that these arguments should not be made if they are credible). Mainstream kritiks (cap, security, ete) are relevant concerns; postmodernism and other high theory arguments are unpersuasive and make me cringe. Please do not say death/extinction good.

I **will not vote for death good under any circumstances**.**

The aff should probably read a topical plan text, but I could be persuaded otherwise. If you don't advocate for an example of the resolution, please don't be sketchy/shifty about what you defend. The aff should have a compelling reason their aff should be discussed and should be able illustrate that their aff does provide an equietable distrubution of ground. Saying things like "Your could have read [insert generic kritik here]" is unpersuasive because you can read those arguments against any affirmative, and that ground is likely to be of poor quality. All of the stuff I said about T above applies--just because there is theoretically something the neg could have said doesn't mean that preparing it was a reasonable burden. I am persuaded by the argument that its not about what you do but what you justify. I am not comfortable judging a debate where I am asked to affirm someone's sense of identity, and my ballot does not signify anything more than who I thought won or lost a particular debate. I don't think there is a link to most of the offense affs go for in these debate---just because debate is imperfect doesn't mean that the resolution isn't important. The following arguments are nonsensical: fairness bad, predictability bad, productivity bad, limits bad, ete. Make sure your offense is unique; organized desision making and the sort are turns case args at best, defiantly not external offense.
 * Note: I need to know what the aff does if you want me to vote aff. Preferably, you should have clear enough explanation that the neg knows what the aff does before the 2AR.

Ask me if you have any specific questions.