Booth,+Jack

I would like to be in the email chain: jlb931@nyu.edu You can also reach me there if you want to ask me questions before a round and you have a disability that makes it difficult to communicate something to me in the room. Also, feel free to email with **constructive** questions about the round after it is over.

I did policy debate for 3 years in high school and am currently in my second year of debate at NYU. Anyone who tells you that they are a "blank slate" judge is lying. That being said, my preferences are less based on personal biases, and more on my argument experience. I am shamelessly stealing a lot of this paradigm from coaches/mentors/lab leaders I've had that have influenced how I debate, ie: Will Baker, Ian Beier, and John Dellamore. Debaters work hard to debate and I try to work just as hard to judge them. I strive for limited intervention. Whatever decision allows me to inject myself the least into the interpretations of issues is the one I will attempt to make. The ramifications are that a team should compare positions, evidence and tell a story in the 2NR and 2AR that puts the round together the way they want. Most debate rounds come down to impact assessment. While coaches remind debaters of this constantly, few realize it and fewer execute it effectively.

**In general:** When looking through hundreds of paradigms on tabroom, I find that I often make quick pref judgments based on the willingness of a judge to vote on certain controversial arguments. While I hope that you read the whole paradigm, I understand if you're in your 5th hour ranking judges and just want to know if I'll vote for you or not. -Yes, I will vote for framework. -Yes, I will vote for non-topical affs, but I am probably not the best judge for them. -Yes, I will vote for kritiks, but I probably don't know your literature. -Yes, I will vote on impact turns. -Yes, I will vote on an arbitrary theory argument. -Yes, I will vote on an arbitrary t argument. -No, I will not vote on arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc. -No, I will not judge kick unless explicitly asked to in the 2NR. -No, I will not vote for "troll" arguments like time-cube, etc. unless they are attached to a specific satire argument.

**Argument preferences:** You can probably get some kind of clue about where I come from in the debate sphere from the info above. My background is primarily "straight policy," and those are the kinds of debates I enjoy participating in most. I have gone for Ks before in the 1NR when required by my partner, but I am far from a "k debater." I put those in quotes because I think most debaters and judges aren't strictly defined in one category or the other. For instance, in Kansas I had very few encounters with the kritik and engaged in mainly policy v policy debate, while being a traditional debater in D8 has made most of college career thus far clash of civilization rounds. In any case, here are some argument specific things.

For the aff: Do your thing, whether that be non-traditional, policy, k, whatever, and I will evaluate as fairly as I can. That being said, **if your aff is non-topical** - I think I have a lower threshold for voting on fw than the average judge and my background makes me pretty sympathetic to the small schools disad - but if you can impact turn it or have reasons why fairness/portable skills are bad, more power to you. I understand the merit in “but the state is bad” arguments made by performance/kritical affs, but I don’t believe that is enough, especially if the negative wins a topical version of your plan.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I think all affs should have a clear impact story with a good solvency advocate explaining why the aff resolves the links to those impacts. I really enjoy affs that are creative and outside of what a lot of people are reading, but are still grounded in the resolution. The advent of the wiki has made a lot of debates better, but it has also made a lot of debates more stale. If you can find a clever interpretation of the topic or policy idea that the community hasn't thought of yet, I'll probably bump your speaks a bit.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Disads: Love 'em. Impact framing is very important in these debates. A lot of disads (especially politics) have pretty bad ev/internal link chains, so try to wow me with 1 good card rather than spitting out 10 bad ones. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Counterplans: They should have solvency advocates and a clear story for competition. Exploit generic link chains in affs. I don't presume anything for theory questions. I won't judge kick unless you tell me to in the 2NR.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Kritiks: Both sides of these debates often involve a lot of "cloud clash," especially in high school, which can make it hard to evaluate at the end of the round. Have a clear link story and a reason why the alternative resolves those links. Absent an alt, have a framework as to why your impacts matter/why you still win the round. For affs, pick either the impact turn strat or the perm strat and stick with it. I like impact turns better, but sometimes perms are more strategic.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Framework: I've gone for it a lot and I think it can be pretty strategic. I don't really think fairness is an intrinsic impact, but you might be able to convince me otherwise. I like portable skills/research impacts better. A lot of debaters miss the impact comparison level of this debate, which I think ultimately becomes the most important in a lot of clash of civ rounds.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Case: Not utilized nearly enough by the negative. Impact turns are fun.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Topicality: I default to competing interps most of the time, but you can convince me that I should vote on reasonability. Be clear about what your interp includes and excludes and why that is a good thing.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Theory: I might be one of the few judges that really enjoys theory debates. This however does not mean I enjoy two teams reading pre-written blocks at each other at fast speeds without engaging each others arguments. If you can go for it well, you should, because most teams don't know how to properly answer it. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Speaker Points:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">This is a pretty good scale that I like to use: http://collegedebateratings.weebly.com/points-scale.html

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Final thoughts:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I have a lot of personal political and philosophical beliefs, but I try my best to leave them at the door. Being funny or just doing things to make the debate more enjoyable will boost your speaker points. I think debate is a game, and I think it's a pretty fun one. So while winning or losing, always try to have fun. You don't need to always take things so seriously. I don't understand why someone would do this activity if they didn't enjoy it.