Apthorp,+Alan

Short version below

Experience
I’m currently an open debater for Liberty University. I’ve been debating for 7 years now (1 year in high school was LD, though), and I’ve been a 2A the whole time I’ve debated policy. My first year in college I was in JV, and the last two years I've been in open. I haven’t been to any high school tournaments yet this year, so I don’t know anything about the topic. I am an economics major though, so this topic is really interesting to me. The burden is on you to make sure I understand what you’re talking about.

Judging philosophy
I do my best to evaluate rounds from an objective standpoint (at least, as objective as I can be). I tend to be very flow-centered, and I don’t like doing a lot of work for either team. It’s your job to tell me what your main arguments are and how they interact with your opponent’s arguments. That means impact calc is THE MOST IMPORTANT thing you can do. In the absence of good clash, I’ll make the decision that involves the least amount of intervention from me. That said, I’ll call for cards if both sides are questioning the warrants of a specific card, or for my own personal edification. Dropped arguments are 100% true, but only if all parts of the argument (claim and warrants) are extended. Asserting “they dropped our DA” and moving on is not an argument. I love framing arguments (eg link determines direction of uniqueness, necessary vs. sufficient, etc). I’m fairly easy to read as a judge…I usually make faces when I’m confused, or nod when I like an argument.

Specific Args
T – I prefer competing interpretations over reasonability unless told otherwise. “Reasonability” is arbitrary, so explain what reasonably topical means. Neg should always give examples of bizarre affs justified by the aff’s interpretation, and what a topical version of the aff would be (if there is one). Aff should point out a super key part of the resolution excluded by the neg’s interp.

Case debate – I love a good case debate. Most cases are pretty badly put together, and aren’t prepared for a solid case debate. I could be persuaded to vote neg on presumption, though you’d have to have some good warrants why the aff causes zero good things.

DAs – I love DAs. 80% of my 1NRs are 6 minutes on the DA, and it’s one of my favorite speeches in debate. While topic specific DAs are, in my opinion, stronger and truer, it’s harder to get good impacts. Politics is my jam. If you’re going for DA/case, make sure to make good turns case arguments (well-warranted analytics are great). Good impact calculus is devastating, and generally the team that does the best impact calc will win. That includes making “even-if” statements in case you don’t win every part of your scenario.

Ks – I’m a policy debater, but I do think Ks are valuable. Most Ks are pretty true on the link and impact level, but alternatives are almost always horrible. I find perm double bind to be pretty true. Additionally, I tend to believe that consequentialism is the best decision-making calculus, so “extinction outweighs the K” is pretty reasonable to me. If you’re running a K, you should have a pretty good reason why either extinction won’t happen, why it’s inevitable without the alt, or why consequentialism is exclusive and bad. I’m not super familiar with a lot of philosophical literature, so don’t assume I know your K lit. My knowledge is limited to: anthro/speciesism, Race Ks (optimist or pessimist), capitalism, discourse Ks (specifically gendered language), queer theory, neoliberalism, securitization, and Spanos/imperialism. As much as all that might make you think I’m a bad judge for the K, I certainly will pick you up on them. Do what you do best, and I’ll come along for the ride. K affs – I’m fine with you not having a plan text as long as you can defend why you do what you do. I think framework debates are incredibly interesting, on both sides, but they usually get too techy and ignore the overarching questions at hand. I do think affs should at least be related to the topic. K vs. K rounds often get muddled – whoever wins that they have a better methodology and root cause claim will probably win.

CPs – CPs should be textually and functionally competitive. Arguments like “CP solves better” aren’t arguments unless there’s a reason the aff is insufficient to solve on its own. If the aff takes the time to explain why the perm resolves the NB, they’ll probably win.

Framework/theory – I default to the view that I’m a policymaker, but I can be persuaded otherwise. The aff should get to weigh their impacts, but they do have an obligation to defend their epistemology. I’m fine with conditionality, but contradictory worlds are probably bad. If I’m going to vote on theory, I need a very clear abuse story (in-round or potential) and a good counter-interpretation. Despite being a 2A, I typically lean neg on theory. PICs are generally fine, though some are more abusive than others. Word PICs are abusive and the bane of my existence. Theory is almost always a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

Speaker Points
Be nice, be smart, be understandable, and be confident. Those are pretty much the three things that matter most for speaker points. I start at 28 for an average debater who makes mostly right arguments and isn’t offensive, and move up or down as I see fit. Being a jerk will get you lower speaks. Making me laugh get you high speaks. Your job is to communicate to me as the judge, so you should always be able to see me when speaking and during CX. Gutsy strategic decisions will be rewarded, but only if they pay off. While saying “your philosophy says you won’t vote on this” is not an argument, it just might get you a slight increase in speaker points. In general, have fun with the round, and you’ll be fine. Stealing prep will cost you speaker points. Jumping does not count as prep time, but don’t get crazy.

Short version
I am flow-centered, and will do my best to make an objective decision. I am generally a policy debater, but I don’t mind Ks, as long as you do a good job explaining how it interacts with the aff. Impact calc is what wins and loses debates, and should include probability of internal links. Don’t be a jerk, do what you do best, and have fun. Watch me, and you’ll probably be able to figure out if I like what you’re doing or not.