Meloche,+Brad

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=Brad&search_last=Meloche

EVERYTHING BELOW THIS IS FOR POSTERITY ONLY. PLEASE VISIT THE TABROOM PHILOSOPHY ABOVE.

Dwight Schrute: Fact, I am older, I am wiser. Do not mess with me.

The following should help you figure out how I will make decisions. If I don’t mention a specific type of argument, that’s probably because I don’t have an opinion on that argument one way or another. I'm not as angry/mean as the following might make me seem to be and I might be more flexible than I let on. For example (and I know I'm going to regret typing this) I am a pretty good judge for the K when the neg team 1) isn't completely boneheaded and 2) doesn't rely solely on buzzwords. I would prefer that you stick to your guns rather than over-adapt and make an argument you aren't comfortable with.

Background – I debated for four years at Groves High School in Beverly Hills, MI. During my senior year I debated almost exclusively on the national circuit, reaching elimination rounds at East Grand Rapids, New Trier, and Harvard. I have debated for four years at Wayne State University in Detroit, MI, clearing at regional and national tournaments and during the 2011-12 season qualifying for the NDT. As a coach for Seaholm High School my debaters have reached elimination rounds at local and national tournaments.

Process/Condition/Consult CPs – I absolutely hate these arguments. Listening to these debates is only slightly more fun than scooping your eyes out with a rusty spoon. In all seriousness, I don’t think these CPs are competitive. I am a hack for perm: do the cp. I know you people are going to ignore this and still read these arguments, so just be warned – you are fighting an uphill battle.

Kritiks – I’m pretty familiar with a large portion of the literature, mostly from having debated the K during my career, not because I find Heidegger’s Being and Time or D&G’s A Thousand Plateaus particularly interesting reads. I recognize that, for better or worse, these arguments play a role in debate and are here to stay, but many of them aren’t really my cup of tea. I’m usually puzzled why the impact of the K turns the case or how the alternative solves without falling into the classic perm double-bind trap. If you are going to run the kritik, I am a much better judge for Ks that link to the plan and not just to the methodology, assumptions, or representations of the affirmative. While these arguments aren't my favorite, framework arguments that the neg doesn’t get to fiat an alternative are not very persuasive to me either. A better argument would be that the specific nature of the alternative is bad (it’s utopian, a floating PIK, etc.). Even then, these sound like arguments that I should allow otherwise questionable perms and not a reason to reject the neg. Teams that focus too much on these arguments often drop K tricks (no value to life, the aff is a lie, the plan is unethical, etc.) and will lose on the linear DA to the plan. Judge choice is not particularly persuasive to me - my heart tells me its aff conditionality. You are much better off arguing that reps are not as important as the consequences of the plan then just saying I should ignore those reps without winning the substance. I am not a fan of death good/not real arguments (Lanza, etc.). The choice DA (everyone should get to choose for themselves if they want to live or not) is very compelling to me. There is a reason Lanza publishes his crap in the Huffington Post (a blog masquerading as a newspaper) and not the New England Journal of Medicine. Just sayin'...

A note on "value to life" arguments in particular - I am a sucker for the args that you have to be alive to have value to life and that value to life can be regained. I probably won't vote on VTL if these arguments are in your final rebuttal.

Tldr, you are much better off answering the substance of the K than relying solely on framework. 

Theory – theory arguments that aren't some variation of “conditionality bad” aren't reasons to reject the team. These arguments pretty much have to be dropped and clearly flagged as reasons to vote against the other team for me to consider voting on them. As for conditionality, I don’t think answering one conditional K and one conditional CP is too heavy a burden for the 2ac. That being said, I see conditionality getting out of hand and anything beyond this is probably cheating. Beyond not being reasons to reject the team, some arguments don't require a response: neg fiat bad, multiple perms bad, topical CPs bad, non-topical CPs bad, 2NC CPs bad, new affs bad/not disclosing bad, reverse voting issues of any kind. For these arguments, merely acknowledging their existence and giving a thumbs down or similar gesture/statement is sufficient.

Politics theory (intrinsicness, fiat solves the link, vote no, bottom of the docket) – I do not find any of these arguments persuasive. I think politics DAs are good, and I think each one of these arguments would limit out that discussion, so without some arguments that I can’t think of right now, politics disads good theory would adequately answer all of these arguments.

Debate Bad/Project Arguments – I'm not as bad for these arguments as you (or I) think, but they can be a very tough sell. Reading that evidence from Spanos where he talks about how debate makes everyone into Karl Rove is definitely not going to make me want to pull the trigger on this either, for the record. In fact, reading this evidence will probably make you lose speaker points.

Topicality/Procedurals – I like a good T debate. By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. A good T debate usually requires evidence being read by both teams, but as with all other issues, don’t be afraid to make an argument you don’t necessarily have evidence to support. An interpretation not found in evidence might still be superior to a shitty definition with evidence. T is always a voting issue and NEVER a reverse voting issue. Specification arguments that are not based in the resolution or that don't have strong literature proving their relevance are rarely a reason to vote neg (but they may be reasons your CP is competitive).

A note for teams that are purposefully not topical/kritik topicality: T is not fascist, racist, and does not justify the use of a genocide machine. I think I am a decent judge for the neg going for T against affs without a connection to the resolution/plan text.

As with theory, there are T arguments that are intellectually...lacking. These include: substantially = w/o material qualifications, in = throughout, increase=pre-existing etc. Answer these arguments accordingly, and if you are neg please don't make these arguments and for sure don't extend them. On the economic engagement topic, I think T - EE = QPQ is on this level.

Other Important Things/Pet Peeves/Things That Grind My Gears

Points - realized I didn't have a section about this. My point scale is consistently 27.0-29.0. Points below 27.0 are reserved for "epic fails" in argumentation or extreme offensiveness (I'm talking racial slurs, not light trash talking/mocking - I love that) and points above 29.0 are reserved for absolutely awesome speeches. I cannot see myself going below under 26.5 or above 29.5 absent some extraordinary circumstances that I cannot imagine.

Evidence - it shouldn't suck (I'm looking at you South China Morning Post, Corsi, etc.) – Don't read bad evidence. In addition to being poor strategy, reading this crap will lose you speaker points. The same goes with old evidence. If you read the Steinbach impact to Middle East war, I will be embarrassed for you and a little bit offended. On the flip side, I will reward quality research with higher speaker points. I've done a ton more work on this topic then on the space or military topics and research is definitely my favorite part of this activity, so debate with that in mind.

Strategy - some of the above suggests that there are arguments that I would rather hear than others. This is true, but largely irrelevant - I would much rather listen to a debate where both teams are debating about the things they want to debate about than a debate in which one or both teams is over-adapting to what I want to hear. This is my biggest preference in terms of strategy - I am not a fan of the "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" strategy. You should know why you are reading every argument in the 1NC ("because they might drop it" doesn't cut it). If you are reading an argument that only has value if it is dropped, it shouldn't be in the 1NC. If you are reading a K that you don't understand and never go for then it shouldn't be in the 1NC (the same goes for other arguments, but this is the example I see the most). If I can tell that the neg had strategic vision when constructing their strategy they will most likely be rewarded with better speaker points.

If the neg says that the status of their advocacies is "conditional" or that "the status quo is always an option" I take that to mean that I can "judge kick" the CP or alternative for the negative if the status quo would be a preferable outcome. The only exceptions to this would be if the neg explicitly clarifies that their definition of conditionality doesn't include judge kicking or if the neg block makes an argument on conditionality such as "the 2NR defines our advocacy". I could also imagine a world in which the aff wins that I should not judge kick the CP or alt as punishment for some kind of theory offense (probably conditionality).

Timing - Don't ask me to call out time - I will forget. During your speech I am focusing on flowing and during prep I am focusing on...other stuff (Facebook, Cracked.com, etc.). Timers are cheap and if you don't have one it tells me you aren't taking the game seriously.

Alternate use time – If both teams agree and it doesn't violate tournament rules, I'd be happy to allow teams to use their 14 minutes of prep/cross-x in whatever way they would like. For example, an aff team who doesn't think they need all three minutes for the cross-x of the 1NC could save it for the cross-x of the 2NC or for prep time. Alternatively, if a team wanted to use extra time to ask cross-x questions they could take that time out of their prep "bank".

Paperless – I don’t take prep time for jumping, but I will get visibly (and probably verbally) pissed off if you abuse my generosity. I WILL take prep time if you decide to take time to remove your analytics from your speech document. Prep ends when you begin saving the document on to the jump drive. If the tournament has reliable internet I would really prefer you create a shared Dropbox folder or an email conversation to share speech docs - so much easier. New for 2013-14: I will take prep if the 1NR is not ready to jump their speech after cross-x of the 2NC. No reason that shouldn't be done beforehand.

Be funny – If you are one of those debaters who can pull off jokes without wasting your time or sounding canned then go for it. I'm usually pretty exhausted at debate tournaments so keeping me amused and interested would probably be good for you. In my opinion a little bit of humor directed at your opponents' arguments (notice how this is different from making fun of your opponents themselves) keeps the debate interesting. Applicable references to Arrested Development, the Dark Knight trilogy and The Big Lebowski are a plus. Extra points for references to the West Wing or The Newsroom.

[|My name isn't "judge"] - so don't refer to me as such

Cheating - I want to state this explicitly so you will know what to expect if this ever happens (please never let this happen). I will not intervene in a round if I believe you are clipping cards (though I may start recording your speeches to check for myself and if I find evidence of it I will tell your coaches and give you low speaks), but if one team (Team A) accuses another team (Team B) of clipping cards, I will stop the round in the middle of the speech/cross-x/prep time/whenever and ask that team if they want to stake the round on this ethical violation. If Team A says no, the round will continue as if nothing happened. If Team A says yes, both teams can present me whatever evidence they have (a recording is pretty much the only way to prove it). I will then decide if I believe that (Team B) clipped cards. If I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Team B clipped cards, I will vote for Team A and give both members of Team B the lowest points that the tournament will allow (unless the tournament has their own policy). I will either get the tab room to give the debaters from Team A their average speaker points or if they won't do that, 28's. If I don't think they clipped cards I will vote for team B (and either get the tab room to give the debaters from Team B their average speaker points or if they won't do that, 28's) and give the debaters from Team A 26's. I believe that this system provides an obvious disincentive to cheating but also imposes a pretty stiff penalty on throwing around serious accusations that you cannot back up with evidence. The same rules basically apply for all ethical challenges.