Kobin,+Andrew

This is my first year judging official tournaments. I debated for four years for Cedarburg High School near Milwaukee, WI. During this time I participated primarily in state tournaments, earning various awards and recognition; I also have participated in several national tournaments. I currently attend Wake Forest University where I am pursuing a double major in Mathematics and Spanish.

I am not well read on literature for this topic, as it is near the end of the season, so bear with me. Debate and I decided to take some time off to see other people, so I have not heard more than a handful of rounds since my high school days. I have a pretty laid-back judging style, but I am not impressed by mundane, repetitive, unintelligent strategies. That being said, here’s the breakdown:


 * Speed:** I’m okay with high speed, it’s a part of the game. But I have not heard a speed round in some time. Therefore, I ask for clarity, especially on tags, dates, and authors. I won’t yell at you during your speech unless your speech issues are overtly posing a problem for my flow and, by extension, your speaks.


 * Topicality:** During high school, I was what some may call a “T hack,” but that does not mean I will vote on any T in the round. On the contrary, if you and your partner decide that it’s okay to throw as much crap onto the T flow because “maybe this guy will buy some of it,” then I’ll probably just ignore it all anyways due to lack of development. The way to take advantage of my fondness for theory arguments is to put considerable thought and speech time into developing a convincing position. Negs: I don’t mind the 30-second pre-written shell in the 1NC, but if you take it beyond that speech, it had better be developed (I can’t stress this enough). Affs: I realize that the burden of defense falls on you, but again, I need to hear developed arguments.


 * Theory/Procedurals:** Same story as T, I like to hear it even as a mere baseline defense against K or CP. Develop it or concede it, otherwise you’ll waste your time.


 * Counterplans:** Considering the resolution’s claim for change, chances are the status quo is not preferable. I believe CPs (or Ks, if that’s your preferred strategy) are a necessary part of policy debate. I will listen to any type (actor, consult, etc.) as long as you advocate it on three levels. Theoretical: CPs have added a considerable degree of freedom to the negative arsenal, so be prepared to defend affirmative arguments for me to “level the playing field,” per se. Practical: I need to see specific solvency advocate(s) for the actor/mechanism of the CP. Competitive: CP must compete with aff plan, probably through net benefit or K.


 * The Critique:** I’ll be honest, I didn’t run the K many times in high school. I do see the value of them, and I will listen to them, but realize I may not be on the same level as you who are more familiar with certain authors/schools of thought. Therefore, I need the K debate to be as well-articulated as possible by both teams. As I said for CPs, the K should satisfy theoretical objections. The alternative is perhaps the most important component and must be clearly articulated for me to even consider voting on it. That means “reject the aff” is not a viable alternative without further qualifications.


 * Framework:** Framework is a great way to tackle the K debate on both sides. I’d like to hear it when a K shows up in the round.


 * Disadvantages:** If you can’t devise a better strategy for convincing me that the aff plan is a bad idea, disads with big impacts is a fine strategy. I like the policy part of policy debate, and this is an essential component. However, I need to hear good impact analysis (timeframe, probability, magnitude) from both teams. This will be the key factor in my decision on disads.


 * Case debate:** Very similar to disads, as they almost always overlap at the end of the round. In an ideal aff case, there are specific and credible solvency advocates, but if the neg doesn’t touch the case all round, the aff can make a very strong case for a try-or-die mindset.

In conclusion, this is a pretty fair and vanilla judging philosophy. I am aware you all are imperfect debaters, as I am an imperfect judge. If we can get past that, we can all have an enjoyable round. If you have any questions that can’t be asked before the round, my email is: ajkobin AT gmail DOT com

Good luck!