Green,+Adam

Name: Adam Green High School: Groves (Class of 2012) College: University of Michigan (Class of 2016, currently not debating) Preclusions: Groves


 * General Stuff:** I know pretty much every judge will say this, but I’m very much a clean slate when judging. I debated for 3 years at Groves, and have had experience debating most arguments. It is most important to me that you know what you’re talking about during rounds: I don’t care if I think the argument you’re reading is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard, if you outdebate your opponent on the issue, I will vote for you. However, I didn’t work at a camp this summer, so I’m not that familiar with the Transportation and Infrastructure topic, so you may have to explain some of your arguments to me a little more.


 * Specifics:**


 * Topicality:** I think topicality debates are being incredibly underutilized nowadays, and that’s unfortunate. I know a lot of people just think of T as a cop out argument, but it can be a lot more than that if argued adequately. I think some work needs to be done on the framework of competing interpretations vs. reasonability. Also, most importantly, I really need to hear why you think your interpretation is better. The simpler you lay that out for me, the more likely I’ll be to vote for you. I’m also obviously more inclined to vote on T if the aff case is incredibly non-topical. Lastly, I would not recommend running Ks of T in front of me. I’m not saying I’d stop paying attention, but let’s just say you’d be fighting an uphill battle.


 * Theory:** I know I’m in the minority on this, but I love a good theory debate. Unfortunately, most theory debates I’ve seen recently have just been teams reading blocks at each other. However, if theory is debated the way it should be, and impacted correctly, I’ll be interested. Also, I’m much more inclined to listen to theory arguments that I actually think are legitimate (say, International Fiat Bad) then one that I do not think is (like Dispositionality Bad). The burden is on the team advancing the theory argument to prove why it’s a reason to reject the team.


 * Critiques:** I am not the biggest fan of the K. I very rarely went for it in high school, and I am not very familiar with much critical literature. That being said, I would thoroughly enjoy a good K debate in which the team advancing the K gives me a good explanation of the thesis of the argument as well as actually answering arguments on the line-by-line. If you can't explain the K in language people use when they //aren't// trying to confuse other people into submission, chances are you'd be better off going for a different argument. This is why when I hear an 8 minute 2NC overview of droning on about how “we turn their entire case” or “we solve the aff” usually put me to sleep. If you’re not an expert on the K that you’re running, you probably shouldn’t be running it. Since I’m more of a policy guy and not a big fan of Ks, I absolutely love impact turns against the K. However, when it comes to permutations on the K, you probably need to do some work on severance/intrinsic perms.


 * Disads:** Now this is the stuff that I like. Case-specific disads with specific links and good impact weighing in the final rebuttals will get my attention very quickly. I do think that controlling the link is more important that uniqueness (i.e., the economy may be bad now, but that doesn't mean making it worse isn't bad)


 * Counterplans:** Competitive counterplans with specific net benefits are probably my favorite policy option for the negative. But again, it is very important that the counterplan is actually competitive. I love a good permutation debate on counterplans. When it comes to CP theory, again I’m a fan of theory and will definitely listen to theory again types of counterplans that I think are susceptible to theory violations, such as process CPs.


 * Case Debate:** The most underrated part of policy debate in my opinion, and it’s not even close. It’s very sad that some negative teams just run a bunch of off-case arguments and pretty much ignore the case debate after the 1NC. I would be very up to listening to a policy strategy that consisted of a CP, a DA, and 6 minutes or so of case defense and turns (preferably impact turns). If the neg can convince me that the risk of the case impacts are very low (or turn those impacts into offense) it becomes SO much easier for me to weigh their DA against that mitigated case. Also, the way a lot of 2ACs handle the case is also saddening to me. You should make sure to make it a priority to handle all of the negative arguments on case adequately. However, don’t read new cards on case in the 2AC unless there are offensive arguments against your case. I hate it when the 2AC doesn’t reference 1AC cards in response to 1NC case arguments: it makes the 1AC a waste of time.


 * Random Stuff: ** I’m not one of those judges who will write out a list of things that will get you good speaker points in front of me, but all the normal stuff applies. Don’t be rude during C-X, speeches (although being aggressive is a good thing. You need to know where the line is. Also, when it comes to speed, I’m 100% ok with it, but if you’re unclear, I’ll yell out “clearer” a couple times, and if it doesn’t get any better, you better hope the most important parts of your arguments come out clear enough for me to hear them). Finally, have fun out there. There is no professional debate: you’re only here because you want to be. Remember that, and enjoy yourself. Don't be afraid to tell a joke if you’re a funny person. Good luck guys. Thanks for reading this page, I think it’s really important that you know stuff about your judge before you go into the round.