Berger,+Aron

Updated for September 2016.

Do whatever you want. Read whatever you want to read. All styles of debate can be done well or poorly. Content matters less than the skill/strategy with which that content is deployed. I tend to make decisions quickly. I decide quickly because I don't feel like entirely reconstructing an entire debate after it ends. Just because I go for certain arguments in college debate does not mean I will automatically understand your arguments or do work for you. Similarly, it doesn't mean I will automatically discount any particular argument I'm a pretty expressive person; if your argument is bad and doesn't persuade me, you will probably be able to tell. I dislike theory and T debates to a lesser extent. CX can be the best or worst part of a debate; a good cx is the best way to get good speaks from me.

One thing I have noticed about debate is the proliferation of "cut the card there." When you stop reading before what your evidence indicates what you will read, you or your partner must mark the card in the speech doc and have a copy of those marks ready for anyone who needs them.To quote Andy Montee, "If you just yell out "Mark the card at bacon!" you have to physically mark the card on your computer. It is not the responsibility of the other team or myself to do so." Not marking evidence, and relying "cut the card there" to indicate where you stopped reading, is a form of clipping cards, and I will treat it as such. Since this seems to be an acceptable thing in debate at the moment, at the first occurrence of "cut the card there" I will ask for the marks, and if I notice you going through the doc to mark your cards post-speech, I will warn you about basically everything above. Oh, and marking cards is prep time.

Another thing. Cross X ends after 3 minutes.

Background info on me. --Currently a junior debating at USC. --I debated for four years at Notre Dame High School. --I'm a 2A at the moment but I was a 2N for the majority of my time in debate.

Since I seem to be judging a lot of **framework** debates, here are my thoughts on them. -You need an impact! So what if debate is unfair? So what if we don't learn stuff about China? You need reasons why considering fairness and education is IMPORTANT. i.e. an IMPACT. -I think that the aff should be at least related to the resolution. Obviously this is arbitrary, but I'm still struggling to find what I consider to be too far away from the resolution. -Do it on the neg and topical version of the aff make a lot of sense against most of the affs on the China topic.
 * Thoughts about debate.**

Good!!! A good 2N should know the aff better than they do! The most devestating neg teams are the ones that can tear apart an aff at every level. This is more than just reading impact d, it means turning internal links, taking out solvency, and more components. Reducing the risk of the case helps when going for nearly every strategy.
 * Case Debate**

Specificity is your friend. DAs that interact with the case in nuanced ways are really fun to judge and so are counterplans. From my perspective, generic process counterplans and politics DAs are a **snorefest.** I would much prefer to judge aff-specific stuff. And it will help your speaks. I will only kick the counterplan for you after the 2NR if you tell me to do so. Otherwise, I treat the 2NR as one world.
 * CPs and DAs**

Sure, why not. I like these. But the simple fact that I have read them before does not mean I am predisposed to voting for them. If anything, It means I hold debaters to a higher standard than otherwise. Critiques can be done VERY well or VERY poorly. And often, most people run them poorly. It is probably my fault, but I require a higher level of explanation and depth for critiques than I do for, say, a DA and CP. For instance, it is not sufficient to argue that the logic of security is flawed and reps/epistemology/ontology/whatever come first. You have to tell me in what way the aff's particular reps/epistemology/etc are flawed, why those flaws are bad, etc. This goes both ways - 2AC cards that say generic "threats are real" are not at all responsive to a security K for example unless they are actually talking about the threats that are in the 1AC. In general, I think people read too many cards when running kritiks at the expense of doing a lot textual and comparative work. Instead of reading 30 cards on your security K in the block, maybe read 5 and spend the rest of your time EXPLAINING your evidence and how it relates with the aff. Individual links to kritiks have to have impacts to be meaningful. How does the link interact with the aff? It may be true that the aff securitizes China, but there has to be an impact to that. Why is securitizing China bad? That is a a question that has to be answered SEPARATELY from "Aff = Security = Bad" Alternatives are important. Even if your links turn the aff, they are probably non-unique. A good alternative either solves the aff or removes the reasons why the aff would be important in the first place. For the aff, the alt is the place you should center your offense. Framework is a must have. You need to provide a way that I should look at a debate. This applies to both teams. Your framework interpretation can be whatever you want, but some interpretations are easier to defend than others. For example, a bad interpretations would be "The framework of this debate is that the judge should reject capitalism." That is arbitrary and self serving. A good interpretation would be something like "You should evaluate issues of method, epistemology and ontology as prior to policy implementation." While probably a bit self-serving, that interpretation is a LOT more defensible.
 * Critiques**

--Anything goes but some debates are just more fun to judge than others. Don't take this as an "I hate the politics DA" statement, but an ophuls vs. bataille throwdown is probably more fun than a politics card-war. I especially dislike the strategy of dumping a bunch of bad cards on a flow and then explaining it in the rebuttals. --Morally repugnant arguments will not make me want to vote for you. --Innovation and creativity are great - nothing will help your speaks more than an awesome case-specific counterplan and DA or K link wall instead of the generic "Cheesman and Bruce means floating pic" strategy. --Just because I go for critical arguments does not mean I will either automatically understand your argument or supplement your lack of analysis with my understanding of the literature. --Random buzzwords are not arguments. I don't care until you impact a statement with with actual specifics. This seriously implicates the trend with taglines - "More ev'" isn't an argument. --There can always be 0 risk of something. --Ad homs about the other teams authors aren't arguments. --A claim without a warrant is just that. --Theory and T debates are not my favorite. --No insults or general shenanigans. --Binding and prior consultation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is probably pedagogically relevant. --Perm do the aff is not an argument.
 * Other random thoughts.**