Allen,+Ellis


 * Ellis Allen**
 * Westminster 2011**
 * Michigan 2015**
 * Updated winter 2013**


 * General:**

I know very little about the topic, so easy on acronyms and assumptions about what the core of the topic is.

Tech > truth, but there's a threshold for nonsense. My biggest complaint with judges is that inconsistency with how far they will go on the flow alone. I don't know how to explain my tendencies here, so I'll give a couple illustrative scenarios. --neg drops the 2ac's blippy "no neg fiat" argument. I'd let the 2nr recover with cross-applications arguments from conditionality good. --1ar extends a well-developed claim for "reject the team" on a theory issue. If the neg loses the theory debate and doesn't push back on this, I'd be willing to pull the trigger. However, except in the case of conditionality I'll always default to "reject the argument, not the team." --aff claims to solve war through interdependence (let's say it's an economy advantage). Neg drops this but wins a solid risk of a DA with a war impact. I would probably treat the aff's claim as significant defense against the DA, but not a total takeout. --neg only answers 1 of 2 impacts on an advantage flow. I'll let the 2ar extend that dropped impact, even if nobody discussed it in earlier speeches. I don't think you have to resuscitate the impact every speech for it to matter. That said, I probably wouldn't give this 2ar much credit for impact analysis if none had been done in earlier speeches.

If you correctly call out someone for using the phrase "begs the question" incorrectly, I will award you up to +.3 speaker points. Aside from this, I will award points based on how well you execute your strategy and obvious factors like clarity, regardless of what that strategy is.

I'm a 2n at heart. I don't think that influences my theory preferences much (pretty moderate on most theory/competition questions), but I try to be wary of 2ar newness.

Don't cheat. I'll try to look out for issues like card clipping, cross-reading tricks, fabrication, and harassment, even if nobody calls you out in the round.


 * Specifics:**

Critiques of debate - depends on execution. You're better off out-debating your opponents than trying to make something resonate with me on a personal level. The longer you wait to explain your argument and what it means, the more sympathetic I am to fairness claims.

Politics DAs - I'm receptive to an aggressive "no internal link" press, but there are good cards on both sides of the issue. I personally disagree with most intrinsicness arguments coming from the aff, but if you hash out the role of the judge and why that interpretation is good, it's winnable. I also disagree with abstract "politics DAs are dumb" arguments...obviously the impact to any DA is a stretch most of the time, but I don't have conceptual beef with the idea that new agenda controversies might affect other priorities.

The K - biggest thing for me is specificity. You need to be super clear about it if you're going to claim the alt leads to the plan or somehow makes it irrelevant. Most framework arguments to that end seem self-serving. I think the perm is underrated.

Topicality - see above about topic familiarity. I'm pretty good for the aff when they win the neg's standard is unpredictable or somehow arbitrary. I'm pretty good for the neg when they have a strong ev quality advantage.

Presumption --I'll default neg unless there's an alt or counterplan, in which case presumption flips aff for me. The rationale for this is complicated and boring, but you can always make arguments about how this should be different (e.g. default to less change, even if that's a CP) --if the aff wins a perm, I'll vote aff on presumption even if the status quo is best. I won't kick the CP for you unless you make a clear argument for doing so, and even then I'll probably let the 2ar respond with reasons to the contrary. --"try or die" logic assumes nearly 100% uniqueness, no mitigating factors, and at least some solvency. It doesn't mean "vote for us no matter what because warming is real."