Chin,+Logan

Debating: Edina (MN) 4 years; Debating: University of Minnesota: Third year; Coaching: Highland Park (MN) 2 years; Coaching: Bloomington (MN) 1 year; Topic rounds judged: 20


 * The Short Version:**

You should not have a lot to worry about in front of me because I’ll vote for you even if you totally conflict with my judging philosophy, because I think this activity should be flexible. I think debate should be a respectful, but competitive and hard activity. I feel I am a somewhat better arbiter of a disad/case debate than a critique debate, but this is based on my own habits/experience, not argument dislike, so get down with your specialty. Comprehensible speed is good and I can keep up. I reward good evidence and specific strategies and strategic choices. (Succinct, strategic) explanation has unfortunately drained from most debate rounds; help undo this and you’re a step closer to getting my ballot. I tend to prioritize offense over defense, but do not abandon good arguments in favor of crap. If you read a plan text, then stick to it. Dos and don’ts are at the end.


 * The Long Version:

T:**

Generally: Tying down the aff’s counterinterpretation to substantial abuse is usually a win for you. I default to competing interpretations in evaluating the round, but will move if you tell me to. For an interpretation to be good, it should capable of satisfying education and fairness alike—both important: it is up to you and you alone to show me which comes first. Don’t make extreme arguments if you want your arguments to get full weight (examples: a counter-interpretation that allows anything to be topical, a limits argument that clearly excludes part of the topic). I prefer that T/theory be run when needed to win rounds or keep the opposing team in check, not as a cheap shot—I’ll vote on a cheap shot but I won’t enjoy it. Topicality is a voting issue, not a reverse voting issue. To persuade me on T, I really prefer a full-flow explanation (not just a re-regurgitation of the block you read in the second constructive). That being said, most theory debates still wind up very stupid and underdeveloped.

Aside: I don’t see my T inhibitions as very rigid, but I find myself voting on it less than some judges.


 * K:**

Generally: I vote on ‘the kritik’--often. I get annoyed when the alternative is just some nebulous statement. I have read and know a lot of common K literature. Framework/generic answers can be work for me, but I really that the most effective mitigation of kritikal arguments comes by attacking the alternative.

--K vs. Aff-- I understand the strategic ease of running a K on the negative, but I still dislike when teams whip out their ‘Generic K 101’ file and don’t to engage the aff; fit the K tightly to the 1AC and I’ll be happier. I really enjoy a well-developed K debate; that flows both ways because I abhor a crappy kritik. Dodgy alternatives are not to your benefit, and teams that refuse to answer questions straightforward in cross-x are pure evil. The affirmative, in all likelihood, links. --Aff vs. K-- I really, really hate long, vapid framework debates and prefer to decide rounds on critical merit. I’ll be much more impressed if you read specific alt takeouts, offense that responds to the meat of the neg’s logic. Failure of most affirmative teams to do so probably explains my rather neg-leaning voting record on kritiks. As an issue of fairness, I am inclined to let (passively) the 1AC get weighed against the negative’s alternative or criticism, but won’t automatically give it to you: you have to defend your damned turf, because I won’t do it for you. Standard things you just need to answer: no value to life, ontological/epistemological claims coming first or outweighing, et cetera. You also probably link, or at least the likelihood that you link turn is damned near zero … don’t try to win the round in saying “no link”, unless it is an obvious problem. --K Aff-- Affirmatives should be Topical, because with very little imaginative effort, you can do just about anything by using the topic as a springboard. However, I have voted for movement (‘project’) advocacies a number of times. If you are going to critique topicality, you will have a slight uphill battle because I’m starting the round off on the other side of the fence (though not entirely). That being said, you’re not going to defeat an untopical team without doing the grind on the flow.


 * CP/DA:**

Thankfully, disadvantages are starting to go out of style … just kidding; I have a deep, deep love for a well-developed disad/case or counterplan/disad debate. I reward better literature here but only if the analysis about that literature is extended. If you’ve got really good link evidence or some other sweet cards, then use them. Mostly, I’m a link-before-uniqueness kind of judge. Strong uniqueness mandates a forceful link magnitude, and if the scenario is brinky I expect a good reason the plan triggers the link. Call it an itchy trigger finger, but meta-level comparisons are where I decide many rounds (magnitude > timeframe, for example).

I think that most counterplans are good. My go-to soundboard is predictability qua topic/predictable literature. Therefore, it helps if the negative has a solvency advocate. To me, a solvency advocate provides comparison between the affirmative and the negative, and need not be held to a higher standard of specificity than the affirmative’s solvency advocate. I’ve only seen one actual, 100% specific counterplan advocate for a competitive counterplan, so I won’t hold the negative to a huge standard on whether they have a solvency advocate. I’m more likely to vote against a counterplan on abuse if you ask for it: I’m more likely to drop the “conditionally consult the Pope on a Pic-out-of-this-word” CP on “Consult bad” than the “Consult Europe” CP.
 * CP Theory:**


 * Compendium (speaker points):**

Baseline: 27. I give very few 29s--if that makes you mad then blame a freaking ‘point fairy’. I am unafraid to ‘award’ a high-point loss. Pointers are below.

Extend impacts. Be respectful. Better-explained arguments go much further for me. Clash and interacting arguments is irreducibly good. 1ARs get an inch of analysis slack. Rapid delivery is rewarded. Embedded clash is good only if well synthesized by the final rebuttal. Depth of argumentation and seeing across flows is important. Stay on your toes, get off your blocks and make astute analytic args that apply to the round. A good speech will: shed bad arguments, pin down an argument, and close doors. Think, act strategically, and you’ll be rewarded. Deliver your arguments with confidence, and demonstrate that you’re smart and fully aware of what’s going on. If you run a cheater argument, do so only with purpose and/or triumphantly. Read, extend, and apply good evidence (recent, tricky, warranted, creatively applied cards). Don’t make stupid drops. If you capitalize on the mistakes others make then you’re a step closer to a W. Work with your partner as a team. Keeping me engaged and entertained (being funny) is also a good plan—I tend to bounce my knee(s) or rock back and forth if I’m excited about the debate.
 * Dos:**

Do not kick your plan text unless you really freaking have to—I will give you almost zero slack if you do. I dislike when teams Bull me about what they are winning—“we are winning at every flow on every level,” is highly improbable, so be realistic in what you’re saying about the round and I will lend your analysis more credibility. Don’t make me do too much work for you. A bad speech will: use filler words and repetition, concentrate only on the line-by-line, lack depth and comparison, not refer to evidence enough, jump around the flow, and shift approach midway through. Bad signs include: not flowing and just looking at you or appear disengaged or if I am making audibly exasperated breathing noises. Do not expect to make get headway by arguing with me after the round without an educational aim.
 * Do Nots:**

(-: Logan