Adam,+Amar

Chattahoochee Class 2014 University of Kentucky
 * Amar Adam

__**Meta-Level:** __

I find that while judging, if the debaters can isolate and clearly articulate alot of the nexus questions of the round, it becomes easier to judge, regardless of any predilections. While I try to adopt the ideology of a 'tabula rasa' I find that its not entirely successful. Some arguments can be more persuasive to me than others, and I will try my best to avoid any intervention on my part, and I feel that you as a debater should do what you feel is best. I do not want to call up cards or read cards, so do comparison for me, and if you want me to read something tell me so. **//Explain how you want me to evaluate the debate//**.

__**Topicality:**__

I like T when its debated well. That means good impact analysis, good explanations of standards and how I should evaluate each team's vision of the topic. I usually err on the side of competing interpretations/view the debate through a lens of offense/defense, but I can be persuaded otherwise by the affirmative. A good reasonability argument is about the neg's burden to prove the aff doesn't meet any good interp of the topic, and that the aff is good enough. Other interps of reasonability make next to no sense to me.

Its not genocidal/exclusionary. Teams that makes these arguments usually just have an impact but no internal link to the level of the impact between the reading of t and the impacts.

__**Theory:**__  I resolve these debates much like topicality, and I am admittedly a little neg bias on a lot of these theoretical questions. Again, as with topicality, the impact level needs to be clearly articulated, especially by the affirmative if you want my ballot. I feel that counter interpretations are largely self serving (not a reason to not make one) and that interpretations on theory debates are much more persuasive when your offense is centered around your interpretation, which I feel has become largely lacking. I believe strongly in technical debating, but a conceded blimpy theoretical objection won't be a reason to reject the team, just the argument if the theoretical objection is well argued and explained.

For **counterplan competition** this is how i feel. PICs - Legitimate International- Legitimate States- Legitimate Agent/Consult - Illegit Conditions - Legitimate if topic specific. Ex. Condition lifting the embargo on Cuba doing something is legitimate. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">For all of these though, if you have specific evidence that defends your specific process in the context of the aff, then I believe its legitimate.

I usually believe that if its competitive its legitimate, and if its legitimate its competitive (and vice versa)

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">__Conditionality:__ <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"> Conditionality is good

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">__**Framework:**__

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;">Plan? Need to have one. Need to defend it? Yeah. I'm largely persuaded by alot of the negatives arguments to as why defending plan action is good and is necessary. K affs make little sense to me. That does not mean I won't listen to a K aff, but if its not about the topic, you have an uphill battle in front of me. Both teams need to have an interpretation of the topic, and debate it like T. If you will read a k aff in front of me, I will be more likely to be persuaded by it if it is somehow relevant to the topic.

__**<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">Counterplans: **__ <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">See above. I think that I have gone for just about one of every type of cp. I think that a lot of those "cheating" cps can be resolved via a few smart perms. But I love these cp/da debates.

__**<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">Disads: **__

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">There is zero risk of a disad, and it happens. I am not persuaded by 'there's always a risk. I feel that the impact level of disadvantages (as well as advantages) are way to often the focus of the debate, and I find that debates about a solid link defense/turn or internal link defense can win a round more often than other things. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">With that being said, I feel that a disadvantage with alot of explanation of how it accesses case, why I should prefer it, and why it comes first are persuasive, but I don't feel that its an automatic negative ballot if the 1AR just drops them because they sat on another argument on the flow. **All that is needed is one argument to beat a disadvantage**. The status squo I feel has become a debate that is less willing to be had and I think that a good case/disad debate can be very strategic at times.

__ **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">Kritiks: ** __

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">Not really my cup of tea. Most of these debates are now evolving to, "you did not talk about racism/colonization/feminsm/etc and thus you should lose". If you want to win the K in front of me, make the debate about the aff, and contextualize it, or I will be very sympathetic to a perm. I think the best way to beat the K on the aff is with: **We have an aff, it matters, and the alternative can't solve it.** I find myself going for that argument a lot in these debates because the neg isn't contextualizing the K to the aff.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">I am not entirely well versed in a very broad scope of the literature, but as long as you aren't too crazy I should be fine. If you are worried about me not being able to understand your kritik, and are questioning your ability to explain the kritik during the round, then thats probably a sign that you shouldn't read it. K debates are more often than not decided by conceded tricks here and there, so don't let the neg get away with it.

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;">I don't believe in just jettisoning the aff, and framework debates have become largely irrelevent. There are not many times in which the neg wins that the aff doesn't get the aff, and barely the aff wins that the neg doesn't get the K. FW in my mind (on the aff) should just be we get the aff, and we get to compare it to the K.

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;">If the aff drops k tricks then yeah its a problem and I'll vote on them so don't let the neg get away with shit.

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;">The alternative portion of the debate is definitively the weakest part of the kritik, and **should be attacked more by the aff** - if you win that the alternative can't solve, that doesn't automatically mean you win the round (especially if your behind on framework) but it becomes alot more persuasive to as how you have an aff and it probably solves extinction, and that probably outweighs any value to life claim.

__ **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">Paperless Debate: ** __

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;">Prep time stops when the flash drive leaves the computer. || ||