Hancock,+Liam

Hancock, Liam
Iowa City West 2012 University of Iowa 2016 Currently working with: Iowa City West Rounds on the 2013-2014 Topic: 30+

__**General information:**__ I have very few hard rules about how debates should go down. I will only ever vote for one team, speech times will be enforced and I will only flow arguments made by the designated speaker. Pretty much everything else is up to the debaters. The information below reflects my personal opinions about different issues in debates. If I am not told to think about the debate in another way, these views will become the default. If these meta-issues are debated, I will change my views but probably have a very slight and uncontrollable bias towards my own views. As a general standard for argumentation, I prefer truth over tech. I'm a big fan of slowing down and connecting in rebuttals. Controlling the big picture dominates minutia and wins debates, demonstrating your ability to do that will be rewarded. I do not include flashing as part of prep time, don't abuse that. PLEASE BE CLEAR,. If I catch you clipping cards I will not stop the debate but you will lose and receive bad points. If I catch you incorrectly citing evidence, I will just throw out that evidence. If the other team catches you doing either of these things, the remedy becomes open to discussion to an extent.
 * I call few cards**. I try very hard to decide the debate based on things said in the rebuttals. As a result this means I probably only read a few cards on the one to two issues that really decide the debate. Use this info to spend time in the rebuttals EXPLAINING rather than telling me to call cards that are *on fire* that I probably won't call.

__**New Punishments (Added 12/18/13):**__

1. I hate the extent to which high school kids seem so block dependent without thinking and as a result if I notice you reading a block that is CLEARLY written for a different debate and yet you can't even think enough to modify it for the round I'm judging you will be punished a full speaker point. I will not be merciful as I feel like you should be reading only a few blocks anyways. 2. If you read more than a minute of 2NR/2AR block, you will lose half a speaker point. Overviews are fine, but I sure hope they're less than a minute. (This doesn't mean don't' bring up your computer or don't have your partner type stuff up for you. I can tell the difference between those things and a 2NR/2AR block written months before this round ever happened.)

__**Topicality**__

-If you don't do comparative impact AND INTERNAL LINK analysis, please don't go for T because I will hate resolving it. -I am sympathetic to reasonability claims, but given how terribly teams usually defend reasonability I almost always end up evaluating the debate through competing interpretations. Inane T arguments used to establish disad links or counterplan competition are greatly appreciated, but ASPEC for its own sake is annoying. Impact calc also applies to T, don't forget that.

Theory discussed later. I prefer explanation over evidence. Logical appeals work really well for solvency either way and for "CP links to the net-benefit" arguments. Perms are good, make them. I have a relatively high threshold for counterplan competition and am open to very creative ways of making Perm do the CP legitimate. I will kick the counterplan and evaluate the status quo on its own unless I'm told not to. However, I will not do impact calculus for the negative in that world, so 2NRs should discuss how I should view things if the counterplan goes away.
 * __Counterplans__**:

__**Disads:**__ Turns case arguments and external impacts make these debates much easier to resolve. Impact calc that isn't comparative is a waste of time. Zero risk can be assigned. Intrisicness arguments are defensible.

__**Kritiks/K affs (old version):**__

I almost exclusively debated policy arguments in high school. No objection to kritiks, but I am not the most knowledgeable when it comes to this literature. If I can't explain to the other team how the k works and how it beat them, I won't vote for the K. Referencing specific aff cards for link arguments will get you very far. Neg teams can win frameworks in which the plan doesn't matter and Aff teams can win frameworks in which I totally ignore the K, but I am most persuaded by more reasonable frameworks. I am persuaded by arguments about why the aff has to defend a plan text, but it depends mostly on how its debated.

Relative to the high school judging pool I guess I'm pretty good for these debates from a strategic perspective. I'm open to not defending the topic (as I sometimes don't myself) but I've already voted neg on framework this year. Moral of the story--you can get my ballot by not defending the rez but you have to "earn it" by winning the framework debate. PLEASE explain what voting aff/neg for a k thing means. This is what gives literally every other argument you make on the flow CONTEXT and i'm finding it harder and harder to vote for "K" arguments absent that context.
 * __Kritiks/K Affs (new version 12/18/13):__**

__**Theory:**__

I guess I should probably be considered aff leaning in terms of theory simply in that I'm not inherently opposed to a theory debate in the first place. Theory is your chance to control the rules, and I have a great appreciation for using theory to your advantage. Strategic and unique interpretations of theory arguments are useful. I'll let you do anything you can justify, and punish any team you can prove should be punished. I default to a view of competing interpretations so make sure you have an interpretation and have offense defending it.