Jordan,+Jillian

Debated for: Highland Park (MN), Harvard
 * Jillian Jordan**

Number of rounds judged on this year's high school topic: zero! This means that I am not at all familiar with the popular cases this year and the major acronyms, etc. If you are running topicality or some techy counterplan, make sure to explain relevant topic things really clearly. Don't assume that I understand on topicality why limiting out any x case is good or bad; explain to me what ground that case creates, and why that's good or bad ground.

__General round-viewing things__


 * Dropped arguments:** You get full weight for arguments that are dropped, but it is your job to warrant and impact them for me. You need to explain why a dropped add-on outweighs the neg disads, why a dropped no-link argument takes out the entire disad, etc. I will not do that for you! Also, if an argument isn't specifically answered on the line-by-line but the thesis of the other team's argument answers it, or arguments made in other places answer it, you need to explain why those arguments don't take it out. Bottom line--not an automatic win (or loss) if you drop something techy on the line-by-line, but it can be depending on how it's handled.


 * Evidence calling things:** I think generally, judges call more evidence than I think should be called. I will call for evidence if there is specific clash in the debate about that evidence--for example, if there is a debate about author quals, about what the card actually SAYS, about whose evidence on a question is better, etc. When there is not clash about that evidence, I will go off of how the evidence is explained in the round, to avoid intervention. This means that if a card is dropped, I don't care how bad you tell me it is after the round! I will give them credit for what they say it says. That also means that if you fail to explain to me what a card says or what its implication is, I am not going to call it to figure that out for you! Bottom line--indict the other teams evidence and explain yours. And make comparisons!


 * Other evidence things:** I like analytics, and will not by default give them less weight than a card. You need to explain and apply cards in the context of the debate and your positions and explain to me the implications they have. "They don't have a card on that" isn't an answer to an argument. A bad disad can lose to analytics if the analytics make more sense.


 * Offense/Defense:** I think you need an offensive reason for me to vote for you at the end of the debate, not offense on every position. "Only a risk" arguments on a disad where the negative has failed to answer a damning no link argument (or whatever other defensive argument) are not compelling. They would, theoretically, be compelling if the aff literally didn't have a case...but you don't need offense and defense on every single flow.


 * Speaks and such things:** Don't be overly mean. It's fine to be aggressive to an extent, but don't be nasty, or you will probably get lower speaks. Being funny is a plus, and have ethos! Being offensive is bad.

__Argument-specific things__
 * Kritiks** - I'm not terribly up on K literature. Don't assume I know anything about your K, the specific terminology in the lit, etc. Explain these things well and clearly. Also, explain it in the context of the affirmative, and be as concrete and specific as possible. I want to know how the aff's case specifically will trigger your impact scenarios, so try to tell a story using empirical examples, instead of buzz words. Aff, explain why your K cards are relevant to their argument, and what portions of it they take out. Framework things: My default is that the aff gets to weigh their (fiated) case, the neg gets to read a K and defend an alt, and I will weigh both impacts. If you want me to think about this differently, you can make framework arguments. At the end of the debate, make sure to tell me what it means for the kritik debate you win (or lose) your framework. It's probably somewhat harder to convince me that the affirmative shouldn't be able to weigh their post-fiat impacts at all, and ever harder to convince me that floating-pic-esque arguments are fair. It's probably the hardest to convince me that the negative should straight up not get a K alt. That said, I'll vote for any framework, but those have a somewhat higher threshold for persuasion.


 * Theory:** I think a lot of CPs are fairly abusive, and affs should do more (good) theory debating. I think affs have good arguments to make on consult and a lot of process counterplans, for example. However, I won't bring personal biases into debates, and if you want to run process counterplans (or anything else) and feel you can defend them, go for it. Generally, I think almost all theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument and not the team, but status theory i think is pretty clearly a reason to reject the team. (The //argument// in these cases is conditionality, etc, not the CP. What does it mean to reject conditionality after the round is over? The aff has already given a 2AC without knowing what the negative will go for...) But, like everything else in debate, you can debate these issues however you want and I'll vote off the flow. Just know that saying "reject the argument not the team" and never explaining it won't work on conditionality *if* the other team points out that it's illogical. And, saying "its a voter they dropped it" won't work on a pic that was kicked in the block, *if* the other team points out that that's illogical.


 * Topicality:** I like T! I default to competing interpretations, so if nobody tells me otherwise, i will think about T (and all theory debates) in an offense-defense framework. Like with substantive debates, you would then need an offensive reason for me to vote for your interpretation or counterinterpretation at the end of the debate, though you would not necessarily need offense on each standard. A lot like disad-cp debates, I want you to do impact calculus comparing the various disads and advantages to each interpretation. Try to make T debates as concrete as possible: give me case lists both ways, specific examples of ground lost, etc. I do think reasonability arguments are persuasive if the aff makes them correctly. The aff should explain why their interpretation of the topic is reasonable--why it does not make it substantially hard to be negative, and there is still a lot of predictable ground both ways. Arguments why your specific aff is predictable are less effective.


 * Disads/Case args/Cps** Don't really have anything to say here, these arguments are fine, do a lot of impact calculus or i will do it for you and you might not like what I decide.