Twinem,+Alex

Northwestern University Stanford University Background: I debated nationally in high school from 2002-2006 and for a year of college, as well as coaching high school teams until 2010. However, since then I have not been around debate much, and I have very little exposure to the current topic. I am not up on acronyms, terms of art, or other highly specific parts of the topic, for which I apologize, but it’s probably good to learn to argue before different types of audiences. Style: As long as I can tell what you’re saying, you’re okay. If I cannot, I will tell you repeatedly. My speaker points reflect a combination of the quality of your arguments and the manner in which you present them – if you speak in a monotone and sound like you never stop reading your arguments directly from your flow/computer screen, your points will reflect it. Debate is also about discussing issues in a cordial environment –if you are rude or disrespectful to the other team, your partner, myself, or anyone else, your speaker points will reflect it pretty severely. I have not judged extensively since paperless debate became a thing. I will not use prep time for the process of transferring documents to the other team. However, if there are repeated technical difficulties with one side or other or I feel that the process is taking an unnecessarily long time, I will take it from prep time. This isn’t a punishment, but everyone else at the debate tournament shouldn’t be held up because of one debate’s issues. Any argument-specific preferences below are to inform you but are not set in stone. I can be persuaded to vote for almost anything.
 * Alex Twinem **

Topicality: Topicality is like a counterplan for how the affirmative interprets the resolution. In order for a negative to win, they must have some sort of “net benefit” to their interpretation, such as strategic ground that the negative should have in the debate (“more limiting” is not a persuasive argument if that is all you say.) Absent that, I think if the affirmative’s interpretation is reasonable, it’s usually good to give any area that’s too broad to the affirmative.

Kritiks: They are fine. Ks that are specific to the topic are an easier sell. Otherwise, the negative needs to be doing work on why the aff team/plan specifically link and how the implications of the K relate to the plan’s harms/solvency. I am probably more persuaded by systemic, structural impacts than by more attenuated nuclear war/extinction impacts as a general matter. However, I do think pragmatic action is probably both necessary and good and an alternative that doesn’t allow for that can be a tough sell. An affirmative almost certainly gets to weigh their plan against any kritik, but that is about as far as I think any “framework” argument goes. Ks are an interesting, significant part of debating about policies, and responsive arguments from the affirmative are much more persuasive and intellectually stimulating for everyone in the round than arguing about framework. Affirmative Ks/Performance: I haven’t had a ton of chances to judge teams doing less traditional forms of debate. I am not wed to the affirmative reading a topical plan text, but the 1AC (or 1NC) should bear SOME relation to the resolution in some way.

CPs: Substance: Run any counterplan you want. A counterplan that has a solvency advocate and/or evidence that bears on the 1ac’s advantages is much, much better than a generic counterplan. Process counterplans are not my favorite because they usually don’t allow for the kind of comparative arguments that make a good counterplan debate good. The affirmative’s leeway in making permutations generally goes up proportionally to the arbitrariness of the counterplan’s competitiveness in my mind. Theory: A negative team probably should not be allowed to make multiple, conditional arguments, but a conditional/dispositional counterplan is generally fine. If you have other questions, feel free to ask me.