Ballard,+Kyle

**FIVE KEYS TO SUCCESS;** **1 - Speak clearly.** Given everything I value (quality > quantity, depth of explanation > volume of evidence, etc.) it's very helpful to maintain __ 100% clarity __. I define 100% clarity as whether I can understand every word you're saying. I will be more aggressive about calling "clear," because it's not fair that a team should be disadvantaged/unable to answer their opponent because they were inaudible.
 * Here are the five things I think are most important, credit to Brian Rubaie for this one though**

**2 - Clash with your opponent and organize the debate.** To repeat the above, form > content. Read whatever you wish, just be clear and organized and refute what your opponent says. I've enjoyed judging teams of all kinds and argument preferences, so long as they're done thoughtfully and utilize clash and comparison as guiding components.

**3 - Make decisions early and explain why you made them**. Unless you're really on top of your stuff, I almost always think it's a great idea to consolidate and do more thinking and decision-making in the constructives. If you're the 2AC and you can't cover, consider kicking an advantage. If you're the block, consider keeping 2 options alive instead of 3.


 * 4 ** **- Keep things simple in the final rebuttals and offer a clear set of terms for evaluating the debate**. Appeal to areas where you have excelled in execution, depth of explanation or evidence quality while setting up clear "even if" fallback options against the other team's best arguments. This is even more important if the debate is highly complex.

**5 - Engage the case**. I don't really care what the Aff is or how you engage it, but I love case debates. I'm interested in everything--whether OTEC really works, the technical legal details involved in legalizing organ sales/physician-assisted suicide, the merits of afropessimism v. afrooptimism, etc. I don't have any beef with one-off strategies, nor do I think you should sacrifice a promising off-case position to load up on case. However, I came to learn debate as a 2A whose primary goal was to win my case above all else. If you give the 2AC daylight to say "we read 8 minutes of things the Neg never responded to" and wait to start that debate until the block I think you're playing with fire.

**T/Theory** - I tend to err aff on T and neg on most theory arguments. The neg needs to win a good standard on T in order to win that the aff should lose. Given that I do love a good T debate but keep in mind I have not judged many rounds on the high school topic (oceans) so I am open to any interpretation of the topic, just explain why your vision of the topic is better. Framework - I tend to think the aff should read a plan or defend the resolution of some sorts but if you are not going to, you need offense on framework and must answer topical version of the aff.
 * Specific Arguments **

**CPs** - I love a good CP/DA debate. I especially love advantage counterplans and a good impact turn debate, and if executed correctly will be rewarded with good speaks. I love strategic PICs and 1NCs that give the negative plenty of options. Consult/Conditions are up for debate but solvency advocate is a great standard for these debates.

**DAs** - Run them. Win Them. Give a story in the 2NR of the DA and invest a substantial amount of time to turns the case and impact calc. The best DA debates are ones that read a DA turns the case card for each advantage/impact in the 1AC.


 * Ks** - I strongly dislike K v K debates. If that is your method, I am probably not the best judge for you. Given that, I am not well versed in the literature so make sure to explain your arguments. If you are winning the framing of the debate you will probably win the K proper because it acts as a filter to the other team's arguments. I need specific link analysis in the context of the aff. You should also explain why the perm still links to the K and the impact to that or else you allow lots of 2AR spin on the permutation that will probably not work out in your favor. Indicts of specific internal links of an advantage are highly preferred over "the aff's epistemology is bad." Generally the alternative read does absolutely nothing to resolve the larger issue of the K but affs are terrible at exploiting this flaw. If going for the K in the 2NR, you should also go for case defense to prevent the aff from getting to stand up and weigh the entire case.

**Impact Turns** - A good impact turn debate is highly preferable and will be reflected in speaker points on my ballot. That being said, a bad impact turn debate will also be reflected in speaks because they are impossible to figure out. Treat impact turns like a DA. You need impact calc and why the turn outweighs any risk of the original aff impact. That being said, I do not like wipeout debates and that will result in lower speaks, but that doesn't mean you can't win them in front of me.

**Case** - Don't forget to contest the case in the 1NC and have some of those arguments throughout the debate. Conceding an advantage is almost a sure fire way to lose the debate. Just reading impact defense is not strategic because that is generally the strongest portion of the advantage but I understand it is necessary at times. 2ACs need to actually answer the case arguments and not blow them off. I don't tend to give the aff lots of leeway in explanation if the 2AC glosses over the case arguments.

**Paperless debate** - Given how inefficient flashing evidence can be, I would prefer to set up an email chain if the tournament has reliable internet. Flashing does count as prep because all too often teams are stealing prep instead of just flashing their evidence. If for some reason you don't want to give the other team your evidence directly to their computer, you must provide 2 viewing computers because the neg needs to be able to split the block and the aff needs the chance to both prep the 2AC and read the evidence while it's being read.

- DA/CP/Impact turn debates are highly preferable over K debates - Aff gets to weigh the 1AC vs the K - I'm fine with judge kick as long as the 2NR makes the argument and the 2AR doesn't have a good reason for me to stick them with the advocacy. - Timeframe and probability are more important than magnitude in most debates - Link probably controls the direction of UQ on politics - Death and extinction are probably bad
 * Random Notes/General Biases **