Byrne,+AJ

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=10432
 * Thanks for scrolling all the way down here!**
 * NOTE: I might forget to update this but you can find the most updated version here: **

**Topic Background:** I have now judged around 35 debates on the China topic between working at the Northwestern camp and traveling this year, that being said you should be weary of overuse of acronyms or topic buzzwords to explain your args, I am not super deep in the literature.
 * New Trier '16 **
 * Northwestern '20 **
 * my email is ajbyrne1018(at)gmail.com please add me to the email chain **
 * also email me if you have any questions. **


 * Random things that are important and don't strictly relate to how I evaluate framework: **

-Death/Sexism/Racism/any other form of violence is always going to be bad and I will not compromise my position on that. -I will flow (probably on paper) -If I tell you to be "clear" please start trying to make an effort to be clearer, it is nothing against you personally, I just want to be able to understand you so I can evaluate the debate the best I can. -Do what you are best at -Tech>Truth -read all the cards (even though I might not read all of them for you) -Conditionality is pretty good -Reject the arg -"always risk of a link"= not a thing -"fiat double bind" = not a thing -"zero risk"= totally a thing (my threshold on this is super low, I am more than willing to pull the trigger if I don't think a DA makes sense or the aff dismantles it) -good evidence/analysis/clash = good points -im not gonna kick your CP in the 2nr -DAs and CPs = awesome -Kritiks = also awesome -You need to read rehighlighted evidence, im not going to evaluate it if you say "insert this into the debate'" and move on -I will try to be as thorough as possible in my RFD but I encourage you to ask as many questions as possible, it is called a post-round "discussion" for a reason -The only person that has a worse poker face than I do is Chris Callahan i.e someone who sucks at poker.


 * Framework/Planless Affs **

Despite my history as a debater I have absolutly no problem with teams choosing not to defend advocacies tied to the resolution, I think there are numerous legitimate reasons to do this ranging from personal feelings to strategic choice to make this decision. What this means is that you have to defend it, which means I fully believe that T/FW (I personally find the distinction between the two meaningless, call it either of those things) is engagement because the negative has the ability to contest the model of the debate forwarded by the 1AC and propose their own counter methodology. Debate is a game that is unique among all other games in that the competitors get to decide and argue out the rules themselves, if you don't think that is the fucking coolest thing ever than I am probably not a good judge for you on either side.

I have no claims to objectivity though and I definitely have my preferences towards the way these debates play out so it is only fair to list them out.

The value of debate should never be assumed as just being intrinsic, just like any other arg you are going to need impacts and warrants to that claim. Luckily, there are a lot of things I find good about this activity so it shouldn't be that difficult to prove.

Affs closer to the topic will probably do better in front of me than those that are not.

I am very hesistant to think that a ballot can resolve psychic violence or be a referendum on an individuals personal identity instead of the arguements that those people made. I want to vote for arguments made by people, not arguments FOR the person themselves.

Any argument that says roleplaying or reading a plan text alone is able to make debaters better engage institutions/the government is a non-starter. The skills that make us better at engaging institutions are very likely not unique to engaging the resolution.

The arguments I would greatly prefer that the negative made is one based off of questions of procedural fairness and a predictable limit/stasis of discussion. If you want to defend the merits of the state, put that somewhere else in the debate or argue that winning FW/T should be seperated from winning any other argument.

Both sides should constantly be providing examples to support their link/impact claims, doing so will make it easier to picture your method and therfore make me more likely to vote for y'all

The aff should take full advantage of their case in all instances and should be clearly extending offense from it throughout the debate, I think most negs fail when they are able to play defense to key 1ac claims or sometimes do not engage at all. You should capitalize on that especially if the negative doesn't have a specific reason defending why they didn't answer the case.

You must do impact calc, let me say that again, **YOU MUST DO IMPACT CALC**, if you can't explain why anything you say matters, i'm probably not going to justify anything for you.

Alternative forms of evidence such as performance, narrative, poetry, audio/visual, is all awesome and encouraged, just like anything else in the debate, you are expected to defend them.

Tech>Truth always, just because I think something is a bad argument I will vote on it in a heartbeat if it is not challenged sufficiently.

**Please email me or talk to me before the round if you have any questions**, this is something that I constantly think about and constantly changing my stance on.