Kall,+Aaron

=Aaron Kall - Assistant Director of Debate at The University of Michigan=

General Judging Paradigm- I think debate is an educational game. Someone once told me that there are three types of judges: big truth, middle truth, and little truth judges. I would definitely fall into the latter category. I don't think a two hour debate round is a search for the truth, but rather a time period for debaters to persuade judges with the help of evidence and analytical arguments. I have many personal biases and preferences, but I try to compartmentalize them and allow the debate to be decided by the debaters. I abhor judge intervention, but do realize it becomes inevitable when debaters fail to adequately resolve the debate. This frequently occurs when there is a lack of impact calculus conducted by the last two rebuttals. I am a very technical and flow-oriented judge. I will not evaluate arguments that were in the 2AR and 2AC, but not the 1AR. This is also true for arguments that were in the 2NR and 1NC, but not in the negative block.

Counterplans/Theory- I would consider myself liberal on theory, especially regarding plan-inclusive counterplans. Usually, the negative block will make ten arguments theoretically defending their counterplan and the 1AR will only answer eight of them- the 2NR will extend the two arguments that were dropped, etc. and that's usually good enough for me. I have often voted on conditionality because the Aff. was technically superior. If you're Aff. and going for theory, make sure to answer each and every negative argument. I am troubled by the recent emergence of theory and procedural debates focusing on offense and defense. I don't necessarily think the negative has to win an offensive reason why their counterplan is theoretically legitimate- they just have to win that their counterplan is legitimate. For the Aff., I believe that permutations must include all of the plan and all or part of the counterplan. I think the do the counterplan permutation is silly and don't think it's justified because the negative is conditional, etc. I do realize this permutation wins rounds because it's short and Neg. teams sometimes fail to answer it. On the issue of presumption, a counterplan must provide a reason to reject the Aff. Finally, I think it's illegitimate when the Aff. refuses to commit to their agent for the explicit purpose of ducking counterplans, especially when they read solvency evidence that advocates a particular agent. This strategy relies on defending the theory of textual competition, which I think is a bad way of determining whether counterplans compete.

Topicality- I would much rather decide a debate on a counterplan and/or disadvantage than topicality. If the 2NR is torn between these two options, please prefer the latter. In the abstract, I would prefer a more limited topic as opposed to one where hundreds of cases could be considered topical and small/new affirmatives are broken every round. For me, topicality usually comes down to which side provides the best, most fair, and most predictable interpretation for debate. Topicality often seems like a strategy of desperation for the negative, so if it's not, make sure the violation is well developed in the negative block. I resolve topicality debates in a very technical manner. Often it seems like the best Affirmative answers are not made until the 2AR, which is probably too late for me to consider them.

Kritiks- If I got to choose my ideal debate to judge, it would probably involve a politics or other disadvantage and a case or counterplan debate. But, I do realize that debaters get to run whatever arguments they want and strategy plays a large role in argument selection. I have probably voted for a kritik about a half of dozen times this year. I never ran kritiks when I debated and I do not read any philosophy in my free time. Kritik rhetoric often involves long words, so please reduce your rate of speed slightly so I can understand what you are saying. Kritiks as net-benefits to counterplans or alternatives that have little or no solvency deficit are especially difficult for Affirmatives to handle.

Evidence Reading- I read a lot of evidence, unless I think the debate was so clear that it's not necessary. I won't look at the un-underlined parts of cards- only what was read into the round. I am pretty liberal about evidence and arguments in the 1AR. If a one card argument in the 1NC gets extended and ten more pieces of evidence are read by the negative block, the 1AR obviously gets to read cards. I think the quality of evidence is important- a card from a political scientist usually gets more weight than a card from a blog. I wish there would be more time spent in debates on the competing quality of evidence.

Cheap Shots/Voting Issues- These are usually bad arguments, but receive attention because they are commonly dropped. For me to vote on these arguments, they must be clearly articulated and have a competent warrant behind them. Just because the phrase voting issue was made in the 1AR, not answered by the 2NR, and extended by the 2AR doesn't make it so. There has to be an articulated link/reason it's a voting issue for it to be considered.

Pet Peeves- The phrase cold conceded, being asked to flow overviews on separate pieces of paper, 2NRs that go for too much, inefficiency, being referred to as 'judge', the phrase 'extend-across', etc.