Tarloff,+Eliot

College Prep
At the outset, I should say that I've only judged 4 debates this year and they were all at the college level. I've also been out of the activity for a while, so I might be a little behind all of you in terms of topic knowledge and argument evolution over the course of the year. Take that into consideration in terms of highly specific topicality arguments, sneaky PICs, etc. I'm confident I'll be able to keep up, but you might want to slow down a little and explain a few arguments more simply than you have had to at recent tournaments.

Topicality: I think the affirmative needs to defend a topical advocacy. I tend to view topicality as a jurisdictional voting issue, but I won't always default to the most limiting interpretation if the affirmative presents a reasonable interpretation of the topic. I know almost nothing about public health assistance in Sub-Saharan Africa, so I may be a little lost on what the topicality arguments are at first, but that should not discourage you from running and going for a good violation. Like other arguments, I believe that good T debates should feature evidence and comparisons from both teams. Critical Affs: I am happy to listen to critical affirmatives, but I'm more likely to be sympathetic if it's grounded in a topical statement of advocacy. I don't have a strong opinion about the traditional framework question. I tend to think that the affirmative should defend the consequences of their plan, but that's a debateable question. As with most theoretical questions, I think that this comes down to questions of ground. Critiques: Ks are a really important component of the negative arsenal. I probably prefer traditional disadvantage/counterplan/case debates, but I've judged and debated in a lot of K rounds. I prefer really specific criticisms to generic style statism, but especially against new affirmatives, I totally understand why sometimes the old Martin file might look pretty appealing. I think that K debates often end up being too easy to judge because the affirmative lets the negative get away with a theoretically abusive alternative. If the Aff lets the neg adovcate a floating PIC or avoid responsibility for the status quo, they're usually in a lot of trouble. That being said, I'm also probably a bit of a hack for a persuasive 2AR. Non-Traditional Affirmatives: I've been thinking about this a lot recently, though to be honest, I've never judged a non-traditional debate round. On the one hand, I seriously value the contribution of non-traditional college debate teams, and think that there's something significant that's happening to our community that shouldn't be ignored or silenced. On the other hand, my priority as a judge is to ensure competitive equity. If you're gong to defend a non-traditional interpretation of debate, and the negative goes for framework, you'll need to convince me that your interpretation of debate allows for a predictable and fair division of ground. You don't necessarily have to demonstrate that your interpretation gives the negative the ground that it wants, but you do have to win that there is room for argumentative clash in your framework. Decision calculus: This question is really up to the debaters. I'll default to evaluating the comparative risk of impacts, if not directed otherwise. Theory: I like theory debates if done well. I think that PICs and Dispo are probably fine. My gut tells me that consult CPs are probably illegitimate but to the GBN and Colleyville debaters out there, I have never once heard a compelling argument why this is actually true. I also think that it's hard to prove why these arguments are voting issues and not just reasons to reject the CP. I'm probably slightly aff biased in terms of conditionality, but this is obviously case dependent. I think that object fiat (either object of the plan or the advantage) is illegitimate. Against brand new affiramtives, my threshold is much higher for aff theory. Affirmatives can make theory arguments more effective by combining theory arguments and having unique reasons why the combination is worse. A conditional PIC is probably worse than the sum of its parts but you obviously need a warrant for why this is true. Similarly, I think negative's can gain leverage on theory debates by having "counter-interpretations" that solve offense. D/as and Case and Counterplans: This is probably the type of debate I'm most prepared to judge. For all of these arguments, the trickier the better. If the disadvantage turns the case, that's particularly damning, but the negative can make these arguments much stronger by having evidence or a real warrant. I should admit that I do believe that good defense can beat a disadvantage. A dropped real "no link" argument really does mean "no link." On the other hand though, affiramtives should have as much offense as possible. The best 2As should unload with an add-on and turns to a d/a, and theory. Demeanor: I'm sure you all know this, but don't be rude or unnecessarily aggressive in a mean-spirited sort of way. Tag-team CX is fine, but be respectful to your partner and the other team. Being funny is good. Making jokes (at your own, your partner's, or the other team's expense) is great if it's all in good fun. Getting up to the line and not crossing it is difficult, especially in break and elim rounds. Try to relax and enjoy and experience and the opportunity to visit the fine setting of the bustling metropolis of Lexington Kentucky. Every year, I swear I'll never go back to the TOC, and yet, here I am again :-) Congratulations to everyone and have fun. The TOC is totally awesome. Good luck.