Davis,+Chad

I debated for 3 years in high school at Jesuit College Prep in Dallas, but have been occasionally judging the past few years. This year I am working with the Jesuit team and have started to familiarize myself with the topic.

I am fairly open and will listen to all arguments in the round, as long as they are explained clearly and the evidence backs them up. Citations are important and the lack of a quality cite will diminish the quality of the evidence in my decision.

Topicality - Not my favorite, but I will vote on it. The Neg should offer a good violation that clearly explains why the Aff does not meet and why their violation is the most fair and produces the best debates. Both teams should be sure to explain what cases would meet their definitions and what the other team would justify (wrongly) with theirs. I can be persuaded that topicality is about competing interpretations, but believe that the best definition/interpretation is the one that sets up the fairest, best debates. Theory - While not my favorite debates, I will vote on theory if there is actual explained abuse or good arguments as to what the other team would allow/justify. When debating theory, be sure to slow down and be clear. I prefer a detailed analysis of a few points rather than one word or one sentence on many points. To me, its more about having a fair round than anything else. DA/Case Debate/Impact Debate - I am a big fan of all three. Offense against the case or DA is wonderful, but defense at times may be enough for the other team to lose the advantage (or impact of the DA). I think that the case debate is often underutilized in debate. The Neg can win on solely case turns if they are developed well. On the same token, defense against the Links and Internal Links (of both DAs and Advantages) can pay dividends if they are developed and you explain how they diminish affect the world in which the plan is enacted. Impact analysis specific to the case or DA is important. CP - Must have net benefits that are a reason to vote against the aff. The Neg must be able to explain why the CP is better than the aff/perm. Kritik - I do enjoy K debates, but make sure to use a link narrative specific to the aff. The Neg should explain exactly why the Aff is bad, and how the alternative can solve the problem (or whatever you say the role of the ballot is), rather than just relying on generic explanations (you use capitalism, the government controls their lives, etc.) The Negative should establish a framework, explain why it is best, and how the K relates to the aff in that framework. The Aff can argue for a different framework, and explain the same things. If argued, I think that at Kritik that either does not have an alternative, or that is losing the alternative debate, can still be evaluated as a DA and may be enough to outweigh the case. I often think that the aff can serve as good offense against a Kritik, and that both sides should be sure to cover how the kritik functions in the world of the aff and vice versa.

If you have any other questions, just ask. Good use of CX to set up arguments will give you a speaker point boost. Speaker points are also based on clarity, persuasiveness, and general demeanor in the round and to the others in the round. Most importantly, have fun!