Molinaro,+Matt

Overall, I'm here to judge the debate which means I want you to do what you're best at. At the end of the round, I'm going to try to find the easiest way to vote. Usually that means the team doing the best comparative work will win the round, regardless of the argument it's on. Do what you do best, and tell me why that's best. I, of course, do have my biases.

I've been judging for four years now, and typically about 40-60 rounds a season. I have done no research on the current (fall 2011) topic at all. I debated 3 years in high school for Stow (Ohio), as well as year for Miami.

Evidence-wise: I'd rather hear one good card than five mediocre ones. I also think a good argument trumps a bad card. You don't win that something is true just because you read a piece of evidence on the claim; however, if the other team doesn't challenge it, it is true....even if that's very painful. I won't read your evidence unless it is to resolve a dispute about what the evidence says - you don't need to say "read the evidence." Good evidence analysis and comparison is the easiest way to earn speaker points in front of me. By this I mean analyzing the evidence via qualifications, etc., rather than simply telling me the evidence post-dates.

Topicality: I think you're going to have a hard time getting me to vote on it - this is probably the worst 2nr choice in front of me (besides aspec). In order to get me to vote on topicality: They should probably truly be untopical - there's some of these cases/key terms on every topic that are actually relevant for topicality debates. You know what these terms and cases are.

Theory: I think most are reasons to reject arguments, not teams. If you're going for it, I will need *at least* 30 seconds as for why I reject the team. Most of the complaints are reasons to reject that argument in that specific round. I tend to place a higher burden on the team initiating the theory debate (ie: on a condo bad debate, the aff has a higher burden). Make sure you are making comparative claims.

Disads: I think there is a such thing as a "risk of the disad", though I think it has to be a substantial risk. I think you can win a disad with purely defensive arguments, if they're good. Make sure you do your impact calc, and I'm down with a big DA/CP debate. I think focus links on politics are dumb, and I am receptive to fiat arguments on politics. Link debates seem to be forgotten anymore in favor of uniqueness debates, so I typically end up resolving uniqueness first.

Counterplans: Good. Case specific counterplans? Great. PICS? Good. Process CPs? Not especially enjoyable - make sure they have an external n/b that isn't artificial. I don't really like: consult, condition, referendum, veto cheato, etc. If it's a topic where there is a clear fed v state question (poverty, energy), states is a good CP. In the 2NR/2AR please tell me about whether or not I should be evaluating the status quo as an option. I think, as of right now, if the counterplan is in the 2NR, I will only evaluate plan v. counterplan unless I'm told otherwise. I do like textual/functional competition debates. I don't particularly enjoy process CPs (consult, condition, etc.) but States is okay if it's relevant to the topic.

K: I'm very much open to the K debate, and probably a little more likely than your average judge to vote on "K turns case" as a 2NR strat. I tend to think the burdens of a K debate are different than a DA/CP debate, just because of the multitude of ways they interact with the aff. So, in essence, the higher burden placed on a K debate is to explain why it disproves the aff, and what I am voting for by voting neg. In debate terms, that means you need to have a coherent role of the ballot for me to follow, that should be justified by the specifics of your K and the round. This brings me to...

Framework: I think this ends up being a race to the middle more than anything else. Yes, discourse shapes reality, and yes fiat is probably good. One way around this is to either explain either a) why your impacts come FIRST or b) why your impacts make theirs inevitable. Or, set your ground on the framework and don't budge. Again, contextualizing your framework is the best way to win the framework debate. That means it should be about more than yes/no Ks, but more about yes/no your K.

Just make sure you enjoy yourself and are the better debaters -- that will probably be enough to get me to vote for you.

Speaker points: I feel pretty similar to Bill Batterman. I thought about jacking his scale, but I probably am a bit lower. I center on a 27.5. If you get a 27.5, you are average for the tournament. If you get a 28, I think you're clearing. 29, probably one of the best (top 3?) speakers I would expect to see at this tournament. Honestly, I've rarely gone over 28.5 that I can remember.

Also, I tend to be careful about what I do/don't allow in the 2AR. I try to use a predictability standard for extrapolations of arguments. I realize that's super-subjective, but I think the 1AR strategy makes certain 2AR arguments predictable and I tend to be more lenient on allowing those. 2AR impact calculus is always fine.