DeAngelis,+Joey

I debated policy for Bishop Kelley High School for four years. This is my first year officially judging (I’ve judged about 20-25 rounds this year), but I did judge some in high school as well. As a high school debater, I qualified for state four times, qualified for nationals, and won state.

What I ran in high school: My partner and I ran a policy aff most of the time, on the neg we ran T pretty much every round, with specific(ish) disads and counterplans more often than not.

PARADIGM: Policy Unless an alternative framework is presented, I will vote for the most feasible, solvent option in the round/ the one that produces the best world. However, I will evaluate the round in the way that the debaters say to evaluate to the round. I will try to view the round as objectively as possible. However, there are some arguments I tend to view as more objectively true, or at least am more easily persuaded by, which I will go over in just a second.

STYLE: I’m okay with speed, but it needs to be clear. You also need to distinguish tags and cites from the actual evidence. The best way to do this is to slow down a little and emphasize them. You also need to slow down a little on T and theory flows to make sure I get the warrants of what you are saying; if you just spread through theory or T blocks, I’m probably not going to flow it. I also think Cross-X is one of the most important parts of the debate, strategically speaking. If you use it well, you will get higher speaks and it just makes the debate go more smoothly. Essentially, I prefer the argumentative aspect of debate to the stylistic aspects. If you forgo the opportunity to develop a clear argument to sound pretty, the debate is not going to be as interesting, but at the same time, this is a communication event, so make sure I can understand you.

TOPICALITY/THEORY To win my ballot on a T/theory debate you need to do all of the following things: articulate a clear abuse story, prove in-round abuse, articulate why that abuse is a reason to reject the team (other than “it’s just not fair,” unless you have a really good reason I should care about fairness), have clearly articulated warrants (especially in the voters), and always articulate the links between the violation and how you access the voters. With theory, I would also prefer an interpretation. I won’t hold it against you if you don’t give one, but it makes theory debates a lot clearer. With T, I believe reasonability refers to the aff’s counter-interpretation, not the aff case. Also, I don’t really like spec arguments, but I’m still willing to vote on them if you run them well.

DISADS Obviously, I prefer a specific link to a generic link, but I will listen to generic disads. However, I would like a story of what happens with the disad and how the affirmative case causes it. And don’t forget to weigh your impacts.

KRITIKS I like good K debates but really despise bad k debates. If you run them well and do the following things, I will vote for them: Articulate a clear specific link to the affirmative, describe a tangible impact (and say why that impact outweighs), and clearly explain the alternative: what it does, how it works, who does it. I don’t often buy “reject the affirmative” alternatives unless you give a clear warrant as to why that would work. If the alternative isn't clear, I’m not going to do extra work for you, and I’m not going to vote for an alternative if I don’t know what I’m voting for.

COUNTERPLANS I like counterplans, but make sure they’re relevant to the aff. Also make sure you have a feasible net benefit and it’s competitive. For perms, make sure you have a warrant as to what the perm would actually do, don’t just say “do both.” Say how both would be done and why it’s a good idea.

At the end of the debate, explain to me why you should win the round, not just the individual flows. Tell me why your argument as a whole matters and have a good impact calc. If you do a better job of this than the other team, you will most likely win the round.

Finally, have fun. I’m not easily offended, just don’t go overboard.