deBeus,+Alex

I debated for Phoenix Country Day School for four years in high school, and did a year of college debate at Arizona State University. I assistant coached the debate team at PCDS for five years, and I now coach the team at Sage Ridge School in Reno, NV. This year, 2012-13, is my sixth year judging.
 * Debate Experience**

I default to viewing the round in terms of the hypothetical consequences of implementing competing policy options. That doesn't mean I'm not willing to evaluate the round in a different way, but you need to argue that I should and why debate would be a better activity if we evaluated it your way. You should give good impact analysis if you want to win my ballot - too many teams either don't give impact analysis at all or just say "we outweigh on timeframe, probability, and magnitude - extend our Smith evidence" without explaining why. If one team's impact analysis is a lot better, they are likely to get my ballot even if their impacts probably wouldn't outweigh in a world where both teams give impact analysis, since I generally vote for the team I feel I had to do less work for. In general I can be persuaded to vote on almost anything (with the exception of something like double win that affects other teams outside the round), but there should be a healthy debate about the role of my ballot. I firmly believe that one of the greatest things about debate is the fact that just about anything is up for debate, and I'm not going to punish a team for running an argument that most people would find morally repugnant if they are winning it. I am not going to impose my personal morals on the round, so if you are justifying it adequately in your analysis I am more likely to vote for an argument in that category (e.g. patriarchy/racism good) than I am to vote for an argument that is factually untrue (i.e., a claim 99% of experts in that field would disagree with) or an argument that is nonsensical (e.g. time cube). Also, while I'm on the subject of impact analysis, I'm perfectly happy to vote on a 1% risk that the counterplan is better than the plan (or whatever), so long as there actually is a 1% risk. If a defensive argument is a 100% takeout and being won, then I am willing to conclude the risk is 0% and vote accordingly.
 * Debate Worldview**

As hard as judges try to be tabula rasa (whatever that means), inevitably there is some bias introduced by the judge's own personal knowledge of the arguments involved in the round - whether one card answers the warrant in another card, or vice versa, whether saying a claim is empirically proven or denied is justified, etc. Debaters can make factual claims about the world and the applicability of evidence to it, and judges are forced to resolve those claims when they conflict. In general, the extent to which claims that are obviously untrue go unchallenged frustrates me as a judge. I think that debates are too often just card wars and I would prefer to vote on your well-warranted analysis. If you know what you are talking about and you demonstrate that to me, I will reward you for it. In the interests of providing some information about what you can count on me to know when you tell me to look at your evidence: I follow politics and current events closely and I majored in economics, which means that I know everything that is wrong with your politics and econ evidence. The stimulus good/bad debates I've seen this year, even with teams that are quite technically proficient in general, have been particularly poor in this regard. On the other hand I don't read Zizek books in my spare time and in general have only the sort of top-level knowledge of the K literature that comes from having been in the debate community for several years and reading evidence so you might have to explain more if you want me to understand why your evidence answers theirs if you go for a K in the 2NR.

I often went for T in the 2NR when I was debating and it's an argument that I probably have a lower threshold on than some judges - I view it as just another argument that the negative can go for and not just the argument that prevents teams from running last year's aff. I think T should probably be about competing interpretations and I love a good T debate that is actually about standards. Whether aff or neg, teams that are good at topicality are good at explaining why debate would be better off in a world where we define the meaning of the topic their way. I tend to think predictability is important (which is why I tend to think the affirmative should defend a topical plan text), and other standards boil down to internal links to predictability, but you can convince me otherwise if you outdebate the other team just as with any other theory argument. That being said, I don't want to give the impression that I always err neg on T. I think many negative interpretations are arbitrary and unpredictable, and I think the aff has just as much right to predictability as the neg does.
 * Topicality**

I think most theory debates are terrible and just involve teams reading blocks at each other, but if you go for it well then I'm happy to vote for it. I view theory as just another level of the game and not a "cheap" way to win. If I can vote on a cheap shot theory argument then that's just less work I have to do. I also think theory is usually, depending on the argument, just a reason to reject the argument, not the team (although of course I can be persuaded otherwise). I'm perfectly willing to vote on theory arguments that are considered silly if you are winning them - although often arguments are considered silly for a reason. I think that perhaps in the debate community as a whole too few rounds are won on theory and as a result competitive equity suffers. I lean towards looking at theory through a lens of competing interpretations rather than "in-round abuse" and generally evaluate theory debates in terms of what the activity of policy debate would look like under teams' interpretations and what an appropriate remedy is for violations of that interpretation. I believe in switch side debate and generally think that teams from different schools should have an expectation of competing in the same activity when they show up to a tournament.
 * Theory**

When I debated my most common 2NRs were either topicality or a counterplan with a politics net benefit. I am sympathetic to process counterplans and generally think counterplans are key to test every part of the affirmative's plan text. That's not to say I won't vote on counterplan theory though. I think the negative team should make the 2AC provide a text for every permutation they read, because it will help you make arguments against them and prevent them from changing it in the 1AR. This is especially true when the affirmative reads many permutations. I've seen even very good neg teams screw up the perm debate when the affirmative reads 5 different perms because their answers didn't apply to one of them. I think the affirmative should think carefully about the wording when they are writing their plan text and be prepared to defend each part of it against a PIC. I think generally competition is a better check than theory against shady counterplans.
 * Counterplans**

I wasn't a K debater myself, but I'm just as willing to vote on them as any other argument if they are run well - which doesn't mean just reading your overview about how the act of me rejecting the affirmative plan solves the root cause of all oppression and war. I would like you to explain how your kritik means that the story the 1AC told me to justify an aff ballot is not true. I think most affs actually don't do a very good job of answering the K, in that they don't effectively engage on the level that is necessary to leverage the 1AC as 8 minutes of offense against the alternative. I think the framework debate is very important, and if you do not debate framework then I have to default to something. If you don't want me to default to weighing the hypothetical consequences of competing policy options at the end of the round, tell me what I should do instead and why. This goes for the aff too - you should be engaging in the debate about the role of the ballot early. I am less familiar with the K literature than someone who didn't usually kick the K in the block so keep that in mind. You will have to explain more to me than you would to someone who reads Zizek books for fun.
 * Kritiks**

Give good impact analysis. Everyone knows about timeframe, probability, and magnitude, but I want warranted arguments as to why you outweigh and not just tag line extensions. Also I think if at all possible the negative should try to argue that the disad turns the case - that is often overlooked but if you can win that debate you are very likely to outweigh the affirmative. Likewise the affirmative should always argue that their case solves for the disad's impacts if possible. I love a good case debate and generally think negative teams let affs get away with claiming way too much in their 1ACs, but I think the negative often tends to lose sight of the big picture when debating case, and often spends a lot of time on arguments that don't get them very far in the greater scheme of things. Just think about the impact analysis you will be doing in the 2NR when you decide what arguments to devote your finite time to. However, giving impact analysis is not a substitute for winning the arguments that you need to win in order to warrant why you outweigh.
 * Disads/Case**

Open CX - fine. Speed - fine, so long as you are clear. Prep time for electronically transferring evidence - I don't feel that teams should be penalized in the form of less prep time because they were paperless. However, allocation of limited prep time is part of debate strategy and I'm not willing to allow this to become an excuse to steal prep, so please don't abuse my lenience. If I catch you stealing prep I will tell you to stop, and if it continues to happen then I will write a smaller number next to your name in the speaker point column on the ballot. I will not flow arguments made after the timer goes off. Otherwise I am giving you extra speech time and that's not fair to the other team. This seems obvious but I sometimes see debaters start new answers after they are out of time.
 * Other Issues**