Friedman,+Dan

Affiliation: Binghamton Experience: 4 years LD at Half Hollow Hills High School East (2007-2011) 4 years Policy at Binghamton University (2011-)


 * 2014*

Haven't judged this topic yet, Big Lex will be my first tournament on Oceans. All this means is go slower/don't expect super familiarity with the current topic lingo. I'll probably get it halfway through round, just be clear about what things mean (which frankly, should be happening in good debates anyway). Open to any kind of argument, pending it's not blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist (Timecube came and went with the WGLF). Comparative impact work in the last rebuttals makes my job much easier. My job being easier makes for high speaks and a better RFD. Turns case is a tag, maybe even a block articulation- explain how it actually turns case. Explain what value to life means in face of a nuclear war melting all our flesh off. Explain what all our flesh melting off from a nuclear war means in face (or lack thereof) of value to life being lost. Magnitude, Probability, Timeframe- simple, and not nexessarily ALWAYS the best, but pretty convenient and universally applicable. Arg Specifics: T- Flesh out author qualifications of the interp debate. Explain your impact in context of the violation so it doesn't sound like a framework backfile. Don't really have a preference between reasonability or competing interps, but explain whichever one you go for. There's little chance I vote on "Running T means you should vote Aff" type turns, but don't get sloppy and drop these, or I'll be grumpy and probably have to write a silly ballot. CPs- They're cool. Offense on the super teched out ones are hard, so kudos to those killer 2ACs. Press the Neg on solvency advocates, especially for additional planks. CP theory breakdown is (probably): Lean Neg on Agent Fiat. Lean Aff on Delay/International/Consult, because those are usually silly. These aren't set in stone, just a fair warning. I usually default to reject the argument, explain why their violation is so horrible that it means they auto lose DAs- Lots of cool things can happen with DAs. Please make sure you read uniqueness in the right direction, make sure you have an impact to the link, and make sure your link is in context of your uniqueness warrants. Politics isn't much sillier than the rest of debate, and those debates can be fun too. Condo- 1 position is obviously fine. 2 is as well, though the theory debates could start happening here. 3 is iffy, acceptable but you should spend a good amount of time covering yourself on condo. 4 or more is probably abusive- run more T or DAs or Case instead. Contradicting Positions are different from regular Condo- answer it differently or you're gonna lose. Ks- I run them often, but I'm still somewhat skeptical of the alt debate. I don't love "You didn't talk about x" links because they're vague and annoying, and usually generic "You use the state" links aren't fantastic either. You could easily win on either, I'd just prefer the inevitable stronger 2NC link to be the 2NR link. The framework and alt debate are often hand in hand- if you don't win this, you probably can't win the K, unless you can REALLY explain how the Aff is so substantially worse than the squo. FW- It's not my favorite strat, especially if it's against a directionally topical team engaging from their social location, but I've voted for it before. Don't get sloppy, contextualize the standards to a single voter (that outweighs any other voter hopefully), and remember that topical version of Aff is sadly persuasive, though also a reason why I'm not sure why you didn't run that as the CP instead of FW. Case- The most fun. Presses teams the closest to home, shows the best research, and usually brings out warrants the best. I love good case debates, and often a good block can make a 1AR living hell. If case turns are dropped, shallow extensions are probably acceptable because you now control the spin/direction, and this will probably significantly boost the off case you're going for. Do more case debate, people.


 * THIS YEAR'S PARADIGM***

I'm keeping it short this year. Here's how this is going down: I've gone for basically every argument out there at this point. I run a straight up policy aff this year, I ran an argument that the out the resolution last year. I go for K's, DA's, CP's, Case turns, FW and T. I don't have any biases against any type of argument so run whatever in front of me Speed doesn't matter. Extend your arguments by their substance and give me where they are on the flow, don't just extend author names as I don't catch them all. Be clear please, helps a ton T: Specific interpretations are cool. For the Neg: Give me reasons why it hurts the community, why it's a big deal, not just how it limits out your favorite disad/K/CP. That's boring and kinda silly. Give me a topical version of the Aff or make the argument that the Aff is so abusive it shouldn't be allowed, period. I'd prefer a solid reason as to why fairness/education are the biggest standards/ why one is the internal lin to the other instead of shallowly impacting both of them. Be sure to do the basic things like extend the violation and interpretation because I've seen T debates that should've been one but lacked this. That makes me sad. Aff: Make smart counter-interpretations. Give me the Affs that would be limited out by the Neg's interp and why that's worse than the abuse the Neg is receiving, if any. Make arguments that potential abuse isn't a voter. Go for how you're better for education or fairness, whichever the Neg isn't going for. I'm also sympathetic to substantial debate over procedurals K: IMPACT CALC. Listen, a ton of K links are generic enough to capture all possible Affs. Not the best for debate, but whatever, it's going to happen. Tell me why the K impact outweighs. Why does value to life matter if we're dead in 12 minutes? This is where you should be making arguments the Aff causes those impacts OR those impacts aren't real. One or the other, but please make one of those. I believe alternatives aren't necessary to win but you need to make that articulation and warrant it out, e.g. "The K turns the case and the link proves the Aff necessarily makes things worse, means even if the Neg doesn't solve the Aff is uniquely a bad idea." Make args why the link proves uniqueness. The best link stories come out of specific indicts of their cards or, even better but unfortunately much rarer, their rhetoric/rhetorical framing in the round. Those are the best ways to sell a K to me because those are just awesome. CP: Consult is probably cheating, so is delay, but a good Neg can argue either especially with some solvency ev. I prob have some Aff sympathy but I won't not vote on a consult or CP. International fiat is fine to be honest, though I'll probably listen to this arg. CP theory is a reason to reject the arg only 99% of the time, please don't make the 2AR 6 minutes on CP theory. Multiple CPs start pushing the envelope and giving legit reasons why condo really is abusive. GIVE SOLVENCY EV FOR HOW YOU SOLVE THE AFF ADVANTAGES, the lack of this annoys me like CRAZY. It's probably not hard to say why your CP solves the econ/heg/whatever, so do it in the block if not in the 1NC. External impacts are very much recommended. DA: What's to say? Run em. Please respond to the link/internal link/impact turns. Internal link turns are sweet because it's a all-too-little area of contestation and makes the debate way more cool. Embedded clash is usually a bad idea and poorly pulled off. At least mention the cards you're pretending you're responding to. Make analysis in the 2NR on the card or I will NOT call for it, which means the Aff CAN win on shitty ev with a better explanation, because cards should not be the determiner of the debate. Framework: Usually silly, rarely answered by either sides. One says policy making food, the other says it's fascist. Please respond to the internals as I KNOW there are answers on both sides. Also, MAKE A VOTER IN THE 2NR. i won't do that for you. Don't go for too many things in the 2NR even if you're "winning everything". I need some serious explanations. Also, don't expect the cards to talk for you, because I rarely call for them anyway unless they are SERIOUSLY contested by both teams. Have fun, and let's do this thing


 * LAST YEAR'S PARADIGM***

Okay, so I'll start off with a couple of key notes, then I'll break it down into the specific types of arguments. Speed- I'm good with speed, I've been switching off between JV and Varsity this year on the college circuit, I'm used to it. However, there's a couple of things I'm gonna ask. Go a little slower on the tags- Not as important on the cites, and definetly not a big deal on the actual card, but remember that I should be able to flow the tag word for word. It's a little different when you don't have the doc in front of you. Also makes it easier for me to know if your reading a new card or just continuing a particularly long one. Also, slow down on analytics- there's probably a lot in there you want me to know, and I won't get it all at 400 wpm. Extensions- I'll give more slack to novices, but I'd really like to see extensions fleshed out. I know y'all are pressed for time, especially in the 1AR- but saying extend Spanos '08 without any of the internal warrants is gonna make me skeptical to vote for it unless you manage to spin it really really well, which is still sketchy debate, but coming from a 2A, the 2AR is the speech MADE for poker faces. You don't need a paragraph, but just give me a quick sentence on what the card means/ why it's not important. A good way to evaluate whether or not the card is worth extending is a couple of things- 1) What's it's importance to the case? 2) What's it's importance to the other team's arguments? 3) What's it's importance in THIS SPEECH of the round? 4) Is it anything unique? If you can't come up with a good, quick answer for all those points, just drop it. Quality over quantity, I'd much rather vote for one super awesome argument than 5 poor arguments Dropped arguments- Dropped arguments are perceived as true arguments, I'll agree with that trend in the debate community. Even if it's a 4 sided circle, or that the other team's lack of definitions will lead to debating about crab meat, N64 and PS3. However, there's two cases where those arguments, logically sound or not, won't wind up on my flow by the end of the round- 1) If the other team can convincingly cross apply an argument that you have dropped yourself, I'll consider it a moot point at best. Watch out for that, try and pre-empt it, or at least nuance it so you avoid that. 2) You don't extend it. Seriously, I know it sounds silly, but I've seen a 2AC make a round winning argument, the Neg block drops it, but then 1AR drops it, and the 2AR gets up and tries to get me to vote on that alone. That's not gonna fly. Impact calc- This is woefully lacking on the high school level. Tell me what you're winning, sure, but please tell me WHY IT'S IMPORTANT. RFD's take a while, sure, but most could be cut in half with a good impact calc in the last rebuttals. Unfortunately, most of the time we're left in the back of the room, with an extinction scenario from each side and a lot of lines on flows that go nowhere till I piece them together after 20 minutes. Tell me your extinction scenario comes first, timeframe wise. Tell me theirs isn't guaranteed, or yours sets their off. Tell me loss of essence is an a priori issue, functions on a different level and one much more important than extinction. But tell me why to vote for you OVER THE OTHER TEAM. That's what gets you high speaks in my book

Now for the type of arguments Before you read, however, note this: **__I will vote for any type of argument, I have no bias in that regard__//.//** Don't take this as a freebie card to throw out a shitty T block and expect to win on it, though. Check out my thresholds below __**WARNING!**__ Framework debates are nuanced creatures. You can't blaze through them, they'll just get messy. Go a little slower on these, for my sake. __**TOPICALITY:**__ Same thing on the speed from framework. Once again, I'll vote on it, but this is a pretty high threshold for me. It'll be incredibly tough to win on T and a K, because, then, you just proved no ground abuse. Potential abuse is a tenuous thing for me, it's very hard to get me to vote for that. Competing interpretations is probably your best bet with me in the back of the room. If you go for T, I expect almost the entire 2NR on this. Make me believe it. That's it for me. I'm more than willing to clarify anything pre-round, but I'd prefer not to be asked "What are your preferences?". Try and give me specific questions Thanks, and I'm looking forward to some good, fun debates.
 * __FRAMEWORK:__** I actually like framework debates, on both sides of the table. Granted, I'm starting to get sick of the typical policy framework with Shively cards. I hate Shively. I'll vote for Shively if it's not touched, though- begrudgingly. Please try and run something else. Luis, Lutz, some other limits justification. because at this point I'M going to form a rock band in Indonesia called Euthanasia. But I'll vote for other policy-style hard framework, especially if it's nuanced, and I really like the interesting soft framework shells, that can be kritikal and still give good reasons why something like a plan text or government action is needed. Those are super cool if you know what you're doing when running them. I also will vote on impact turns- if the Aff can give me a convincing reason for why framework is both extremely harmful for the debate community (well warranted, please) AND why it shouldn't be conditional, I'll vote aff on that, as long as it fits with your voters. It's possible, I do it pretty often. Please don't call it an RVI, though. That makes me twitch.
 * __CP's and DA's:__** Nothing special to me, normal threshold here. Remember to keep them unique to the debate, don't kick out without taking care of the offense, remember perms are only a test of competition for CPs, remember to stress why your DA functionally takes out their case because it's more important. Basic policy stuff, it's pretty straightforward here. I will say out of all DAs I see, Politics DAs are usually argued the most poorly. Please make them make sense. I will be tempted to break out a stake and holy water if you run SKFTA. Unless it's for the purposes of irony, in which case, fantastic that's super cool, please do that in front of me if you pull it off you will be forever awesome.
 * __PERFORMANCE__**: I've never actually seen a performance debate, and I'm in D8. Go figure. I think they're dying on the circuit due to all the cool Ks. Anyway, I'm game. But please don't sing for 8 minutes without a reason why it's important and unique. THAT is how you get the world-weary policy-only judges of the world. Impact it out for me- I'm game for the debate community and it's education is dead, and painting for 8 minutes will revitalize that. But it's a decent threshold, so give me some cool reasons why that's true and why YOU make the difference in THIS round.
 * __THE K DEBATE/ IRONY AND GOOPY AFFs__**: I'm gonna lump these all in the same pot here, but that's not a bad thing. I actually really like these types of debates- I'm a K Aff debater myself. So I'm totally geared up to see some K Aff versus K debates, I LOVE those. However, don't think because you run a K Aff or K, you've got a win and a 30 down pat. I am expecting clear debate here, I want to see some good reasons why it's a problem, nab them on the link debate, nuance it please, and make your alternative count. Even if it's just a reject alt, tell me why rejecting solves, PLEASE. As far as perming Ks- Do not, please do not, just say perm without giving me some sort of analysis as to how you can perm. Just saying perm really quickly with a second left on the timer is painful for all of us. Make it count. I also err to whatever team is running the original argument on "Perm: Do the plan and all non-competitive parts of the alt", because I feel like that's a cheap shot that wormed it's way to being standard in the debate community. I'll buy it IF you tell me how it works, but it's a decently high threshold. I'd much prefer some cool nuanced perm, like Perm: Do it in paradox. Of course, explain why paradox is important, but still. Those are fun. Those make K vs. policy debates a lot more clash filled and fun, and then I'll be generous with speaks all around.