Bosley,Jacob

Debated for James Madison University 2010-2015 (Qualified for NDT in 2014, 2015) Affiliation: James Madison Universtiy, Broad Run High School Pre-UMW 2015 Update: No substantive changes, only edits for typos and clarity.

1. __Do you__ – I’m not a blank slate, but I do not have strong views about how debate should look, and will always do my best to judge the debate in front of me. You are better off doing what you do best than catering to what you think are my argument preferences. I was relatively middle-of-the-road argumentatively as a debater, and would like to think I approach judging the same way. Execution and explanation can overcome most any of my predispositions below. 2. __Tech vs. Truth__ – While I have no problem voting for things I consider silly, initial arguments must be sufficiently explained for there to be a burden on the other team to respond. Even for dropped arguments, I will not fill in the implications or flow math for you. I reward teams that effectively frame issues in the debate, how I should prioritize individual issues, and their relevance to my ballot. 3. __Evidence vs. Explanation__ – Well explained and warranted arguments can overcome a series of carded claims, whether in policy or critical debates. That being said, evidence quality matters in close debates, and I find myself more and more frequently calling for cards. 4. __Defense wins championships__ – I have no problem evaluating defense as terminal or voting on presumption. “Try or die” framing is often unpersuasive to me absent additional arguments for why that defense is only mitigation or why the probability isn't so low as to be negligible. However, I reward teams who can clearly explain why “this time is different” or differentiate their specific scenario from defense. 5. __Your ethos matters__ – Clarity is critical. I reward humor, though bad puns will just make me groan. I prefer debates in which all participants are reasonably respectful, though I appreciate well-placed snarkiness. I get that many calls for “civility” are used to silence important criticisms, so if some hostility is part of your argument I will do my best to evaluate it as such. 6. __Paperless biz__ – I won't take prep time for flashing or sending an e-mail as long as it takes you under a minute. Please include me on the e-mail chain (my e-mail is at the bottom).
 * Big Picture Comments**

//Topicality// 1. __Not enough teams go for T__ – I love good T debates. I'm someone who can be persuaded that omission of a key word is make or break for interpreting the plan (i.e. "domestic" for this year's high school topic). On the flip side, I can be persuaded that the aff shouldn't be able to write their plan into the topic through wordings not reflected in literature. I can also be persuaded an interpretation is better for debate even if evidence is less specific to the topic. 2. __Have clear, concrete impacts__ – I prefer teams that provide realistic case lists as opposed to absurd laundry lists or vague descriptions like "any aff that does X is justified." What counts as "core ground" often begs the question of the interpretation, and I can be persuaded that teams don't have a God-given right to "standard" DA/CP ground. 3. __Competing interpretations__ – I default to it unless told otherwise, and may still default to competing interpretations if there is no threshold for what counts as “reasonable." Reasonability is best explained to me in terms of why functional limits check. "Race to the bottom" is not a complete argument.
 * Specific Arguments**

//Framework// 1. __Relation to the topic__ – I prefer affirmatives that have some relationship to the topic, but do not think this must include policy implementation or endorsement of the resolution. I can be persuaded that affs without a “plan” provide a necessary insight or corrective to the topic. 2. __Substance matters__ – I am unlikely to be persuaded by framework as a procedural, or explained in a way that asks me to outright ignore the content of the 1AC. I am much more likely to be persuaded by framework as a question of what model of debate should be endorsed and/or the merits of what kinds of discussions would be produced. You are much better off explaining why your framework impact of choice outweighs or turns the case in a way that actually engages the 1AC. 3. __Topical version of the aff__ – I think this is an underdeveloped and under-appreciated argument in many debates. In front of me, a well-developed and specific T version of the aff that demonstrates the thought you’ve put into the substance of the aff will go far in filtering out impact turns. Aff teams should not blow off T version, and should explain their impact turns in the context of the specific T version, generate specific solvency deficits, or explain why their impact turns apply to the neg's interpretation even if a T version exists. In this sense, I often view these debates much like CP and DA debates, with net benefits to either interpretation.

//Critiques// 1. __Explanation is a must__ – Even if I'm likely familiar with your literature, strings of buzzwords and author-names-as-arguments annoy me. Even if evidence isn't specific, explanation should be. - For the neg, that means link work specific to the 1AC and specific impact or "turns case" work tied to concrete examples - For the aff, that means specific application of your greatest hits of K answers as well as reasons why the neg's link evidence or spin doesn't apply. 2. __Framework/"X first" debates__ - I think overly exclusive interpretations on either side are often a waste of breath. It is difficult to convince me that the neg should only get policy options or that I should outright ignore the aff. For example, if epistemology comes first, I assume that's a reason why I consider the epistemic basis of an advantage or the aff when weighing it against the alternative, and the neg still has to win a sufficient link argument for me to assume it's all lies. "Judge choice" as a justification to jettison advantages and their representations/assumptions is rarely persuasive to me unless mishandled. 3. __Alternatives and Permutations__ – Uniqueness still matters for how I evaluate link arguments. The neg needs a reason the alternative resolves every link argument, or why it does not have to. The aff should press poorly explained alternatives and link uniqueness. I expect permutations to be explained beyond "do both" and how they resolve specific links. I'm sympathetic to explanation being late developing, such as by the 1AR, given the shifting nature of (most) critiques. I'm generally fine with a Floating PIK if it's a clear and logical result of your alternative. That being said, "counter-perms" aren't a thing. 4. __Impact comparison__ – Many K impacts are vacuous. “Root cause” claims are often frustrating to resolve, based on cherry picked examples and not explained in the context of the aff. Impact specificity and questions of resolving particular impacts are far more important for how I evaluate these debates. - For the neg, this means specific examples of your structural violence, loss of "value to life," etc in the context of your links and "turns case" arguments. - For the aff, this means explaining why an advantage is not implicated by link arguments, nor solved by the alternative, and why the impact to that advantage outweighs. 5. __Standards of competition are up for debate__ – In both plan v. K and K v. K debates, I find debates over the theoretical legitimacy of permutations and standards of competition can be muddled. I default to assuming the aff can test the mutual exclusivity of alternative advocacies and/or the efficacy of combining strategies. However, I can be convinced by different standards of competition, such as the importance of method debates, or “no plan no perm.”

//Counterplans// 1. __I prefer case-specific CPs__ – While I understand their utility, I dislike CPs that compete solely based on “certainty” or “immediacy,” or because of a “ban the plan” plank. I generally lean aff on questions of CP theory, but am much more persuaded of a CP's legitimacy when it is rooted in topic literature, such as case-specific PICs. It is difficult to convince me that reading a questionable CP is a reason to reject the team. 2. __Solvency deficits should be explained in the context of advantages__ – Otherwise, affs will be in a tough spot should the neg argue that I evaluate CP solvency in terms of sufficiency. I find this especially true for advantage CPs when affs are bad at explaining the importance of their intenral link. 3. __Presumption__ – I default to assuming it remains neg until a CP is introduced, at which point it flips aff. I can be convinced presumption remains neg in the case of PICs, but you need to explain that argument in the context of your speciifc CP and why the difference in change is enough to change my calculus. I do not think going for a CP reduces the burden on the neg to win a substantive risk of a link to their net-benefit.

//Disadvantages// 1. __Framing is everything__ – You should explicitly connect and compare impact arguments. Does the DA turn the case or the other way around? How does timeframe matter for evaluating “turns case” arguments? Does magnitude trump probability, and how does that affect how I evaluate defense? Does the link drive uniqueness, or are your uniqueness takeouts definitive enough that it doesn't matter? Answering these questions will yield better results. 2. __Smart analytics get rewarded__ – I much rather hear a coherent story connecting your ev, smart "turns case" arguments, framing arguments for how I should read uniqueness ev, or indicts of disconnected internal links than your 4th card on any given issue. Bad Politics DAs should be punished by pointing out inconsistencies between key members, party backlash, separate bills, etc. Good politics DAs should be able to overcome these issues or thumpers with more than “but we have more ev.” The phrase “issue specific uniqueness” is too often used absent a warrant for why it matters. 3. __Politics theory blips are unpersuasive__ – Politics DAs are generally contrived, but so is fiat, and I’m not sure why the political salience of the aff isn’t worth testing. 2AC blips like “a logical policymaker could do both” absent a substantive defense of that view of intrinsicness won’t get very far in front of me. The four words “fiat solves the link” do not constitute a complete argument.

//Theory// 1. __Quality over quantity__ – I prefer a few well developed arguments over a litany of blippy ones. Make sure you provide pen time. As mentioned above, just because something is “dropped” doesn’t make it an argument if it was underexplained in the previous speech. 2. __Conditionality__ – I generally lean neg on limited instances of conditionality. It is difficult to persuade me that one conditional world wrecks the activity. Two worlds are probably fine, though raise more issues in terms of argument interaction or performative contradictions. Obviously, these are gut reactions that are up for debate. 3. __I don’t “judge kick” advocacies__ – I understand “the status quo is always an option” to be a warrant for why the neg is not required to defend an advocacy for the entire debate. However, I default to evaluating the world the 2NR has advocated against the plan.

If you have any comments, questions, or concerns about my judging or paradigm, feel free to e-mail me at: bosley2010@gmail.com