Auerbach,+Ari

Ari Auerbach

Policy Debate Judging Philosophy Because I was never a participant in Policy, I will always go into a policy round with a little bit of fear. However, I have seen many rounds of it, I understand the concept, so no worries. I prefer arguments that make sense. The more realistic, the better, seeing as Policy is based somewhat on the realism of an argument. However, if you can explain your attack that may be a little "unreasonable", there is a chance I may buy into it if it is poorly attacked and well explained.

General Info for Both Sides Seeings as most people tend to spread now of days, I will listen to tag lines and author names, and will jot down what important points I can catch. If the card is a voting issue, I may ask to see it depending on its significance.


 * REMEMBER: Explain your arguments, no matter how ridiculous.**

Speed: Don't waste your time "spittin' like Busta Rhymes." If you're going to spread, you have to be clear and concise. It's best for you to clearly state your author name and card info, and if something is a major point, make sure I hear it clearly, or it will be ignored.

Topicality: If you're going to make this argument, you better do it well. Make your point, convince me why the opponent is non-topical, and hope for the best. I feel like there are significantly greater arguments out there, however if this is your best shot, go for it, it's not something I won't vote on.

Kritik's: This is where the fun seems to happen in Policy. I rather prefer realism, however if you can make a good argument using a K, whether it be realistic or not, I may very well buy into it, seeing as this is debate, and many policies in the United States are based on philosophy. After seeing many rounds, I've seen everything from Transhumanism to stopping congress... It seems like K's can pretty much go anywhere. If you're going to make this argument, make sure you take the time to clearly state your argument and the philosophy behind it. Anyone can read off a card, but if you don't understand it enough to argue it, you probably shouldn't waste your time.

CP's (Credit: Anthony Gerrettie): CP's: I see CP's as a strong argument. Telling me you can do their plan better is a great way to win a debate. That being said, your counterplan needs to address all aspects of the preious plan. It's not a true counter plan unless it covers everything. Counter the counter plan by addressing all arguments. A line by line argument on the flow will help with this.

DA's: Explain them. Tell me and prove to me why you said your specific DA.

Ballot: The flow is the best way to judge a debate round, so I highly recommend you win over the flow if you'd like to win the round. Of course, because the basis of policy has a realistic base, if somebody can prove their opponent's impacts are more significant, then that may also win you the round. I like living, so if you can prove to me that I'm going to die or be homeless or anything else that really sucks for my wonderful lifestyle, due to the opponent's case, you may very well win yourself the ballot. With this, make sure you can prove a sequence of time as well. If extinction is going to happen, but not for millions of years, I could care less. If you can prove to me extinction tomorrow, I'll most likely lean towards your ballot.

L/D Policy

As a Varsity LD participant myself, I really enjoy L/D. Sadly, it's becoming more and more of a philosophical Policy, however sometimes these are the best arguments and can win you the round. Be sure to explain your card, and read clearly, so I can flow. If I don't flow it, I probably didn't understand it, or you read to fast.


 * NOTE: If you are going to SPREAD, be careful with your speed. There is a major difference between talking fast and clearly in an LD round rather than just sounding like you're really angry and saying "Zasdfjklasjdf." Be clear and explain yourself; this is Lincoln Douglas, not Policy.**

Value/Criterion: Seeing as what a round should be based on is which case best meets the value and criterion, this is obviously an important debate. Be sure to define everything that could be confusing, and make sure you explain what your value or criterion is if it is philosophically based. You don't need to waste your time explaining to me in 5 contentions what it is to value life, but you may need a contention or subpoint to explain a criterion if it were something like "Autocracy". The benefits of this allow me to understand better what you are going for, and also gives the opponent a fair chance to debate the issue at hand.

Observations: Explain them. These were my favorite when I did LD, but they had to be explained. If your observation flows through, explain why it is significant, and it could win you the round. Also, be fair. No observations like "Observation A: My opponent automatically loses." That's just plain stupid.

Contentions: I'll listen to anything. If it's outrageous, then I expect your opponent to call you on it, and then I'll side with who makes the clearer and most logical argument. If you can't explain it, don't bother. Sometimes, outrageous arguments are the best arguments.

Rebuttals: Because I judge off the flow, if you don't attack an opponent's contention, it will flow through. Don't waste your time trying to back track 3 rounds later to get your point across. Each argument must be addressed in the following speech by the opponent, so if the argument is not addressed, then it's simple; it will flow through, no matter how ridiculous. This is debate, so you have to debate the points. Tell me why an argument should/shouldn't matter, and why your point stands or the opponent's argument fails.

Voting Issues: Make sure you take the time to do this, or I won't know what to be voting on. Forgetting to do this could cost you the round, so even if you blurt these out in your last 20 seconds, at least they are there. Tell me why to vote for you and convince me why i shouldn't vote for the opponent.

My Ballot My vote comes from the flow. It's which arguments were won by the affirmative team against which arguments were won by the negative team, and the impacts that come with them. Impacts always outweigh. If the affirmative team wins 4 arguments and the impact is the economy, and the negative team wins 1 argument and solves for extinction, the negative wins. It's about impacts with me, and logical impacts. Please understand that no matter what, one side will be very happy with me and one side will be very upset with me. That's the nature of this sport/activity. My decision will be made and it will be explained, but it will not be questioned any way other than for clarity. Any questions?

ariauerbach93@gmail.com