Kahn,+Jacob


 * Glenbrook North -- 2010-2014 - Military Presence, Space, Transportation, Latin America Topics ** [TOC qualifier in 2012-2013 and 2013-2014]
 * University of Pennsylvania Class of ‘18 **


 * I am a technically-oriented judge, and I subscribe to the “debate is a game” vision of the activity. ** Debate should be in the debater’s hands as much as it can be - I will try my very hardest not to intervene.

- I will never intervene concerning evidence unless its quality, as explicitly determined by one or both sides, becomes important to the outcome of the round. It is easier to win an argument with evidence, but it is absolutely by no means impossible to do so without it. - Cheating is unacceptable in all instances, and may result in my intervening. - Presumption always flows to the side advocating the least change.
 * There are a few caveats to this: **


 * Overall, the point of this philosophy is __not__ to create something for you to conform to. I will evaluate whatever you present in front of me as objectively as I can. **


 * Regarding argumentative flavors: **


 * Specific Disadvantage Debates ** -- my favorite type of debate to evaluate. Impact calculus is of course the deciding factor in the vast majority of these debates (so do it well), but it should not come at the expense of debate on other parts of disads. I find correctly-made link uniqueness arguments to be more compelling than others might.


 * Debating the Case ** -- in my four years of debating in high school, I witnessed perhaps five affirmatives that had a solid advantage structure. My point: most affs out there make no sense. It’s both enjoyable and generally effective when the 2NC devotes six minutes to bludgeoning the case; I encourage 2N’s to debate the case more. And one more thing: impact defense is __awesome__ and is in my opinion the most underrated and underutilized tool in debate. I can name many debates where despite having no substantive answer to any part of a disadvantage or advantage save the impact, a team has been able to win enough impact defense to defeat the arguments.


 * CPs ** -- counterplan debates are great, especially when disads and the case are involved. I prefer advantage CPs, but other types of CPs are fine, and a good competition debate is something I actually enjoy judging. I frequently employed process/consult, &c. counterplans in high school, and I’ll side negative on competition debates if left sufficiently untouched or badly debated by the aff. No judge kick by default -- only if correctly argued/won by the neg. Plan-minus, case-specific PICs are great and should be used more.


 * Topicality ** -- I tend to evaluate topicality debates through a technical lens. I default to competing interpretations. That being said, I think reasonability can be effective if applied specifically to the negative interpretation (e.g. if the negative interpretation ev is bad and justifies crafting any arbitrary interpretation to exclude the aff). Good topicality debates stay away from throwing around somewhat meaningless phrases like “fairness outweighs education”, or “precision outweighs predictability” without sufficient justification. These are claims that can go either way, and should be debated out with warranted reasoning.


 * Politics ** -- like most other arguments in debate, politics is a stretch. While I will readily vote on it, it is far easier for me to dismiss parts of a disad if the affirmative points out that negative evidence is bad (which is frequently the case). Politics theory is in my opinion frequently underutilized by the affirmative and frequently mishandled by the negative. Regarding disads in general [not only politics]: turning the case is incredibly effective if done properly. That being said, some turns-the-case arguments are stronger than others; saying “nuclear war would destroy the aff’s infrastructure” may be true, but it weaker and less specific than alternatives, and is more easily beaten. That being said, 1ARs need to spend time, even if it’s 10 seconds, on turns-the-case arguments made in the block.


 * Theory ** -- you decide what’s acceptable. Perhaps the negative doesn’t get fiat; perhaps the negative can fiat that asteroids don’t hit the earth and that countries don’t go to war with 30 plan-plus conditional advocacies. Again, you decide. Like topicality, I like to treat competing interpretation theory debates like Plan v. CP debates.


 * Critical Arguments ** **(aff or neg)** -- while I enjoy well-executed critical arguments, I am not as familiar with them based on what I debated in high school. Nonetheless, you should be fine in most cases. Overall, it is absolutely critical that a substantive reason to vote affirmative or negative is delineated by the end of the round, and that a clear line can be drawn from what the other team did to the impacts. Muddled kritik debates on one side will generally cause me to defer to the other if things are very unclear. I preferred (and still greatly appreciate) the slowly-dying breed of critical IR literature-based criticisms (security, deterrence, fem), but I’m open to other things.


 * Performance/Oppression Arguments ** -- I don’t think I’m a good judge for most of this material. I find it difficult to determine the outcome of many of these debates with confidence. A clear reason to vote one way or another is in my mind a critical first step to any of these arguments.


 * Speaker points ** are based on a secret, intricate formula that only I know and that is too long and complex to describe here. Regardless: I love it when a debater makes a great cross-application, points out a subtle contradiction, is argumentatively innovative, or uses well-reasoned and logical arguments to beat an argument that at first looks formidable. Debaters that do these things both win more debates and stand out, in my opinion. Of course, courteousness, confidence, ethos, and cooperation with both your partner and the other team (when called for) are also heavily weighted components of this equation.

- Both on and off the case, the best responses to advantage and disadvantage answers should be direct: simply re-explaining an affirmative advantage, for instance, is usually not sufficient to answer specific negative arguments against it. - The contents of cards should be used to make arguments. So, __be clear__. Reading so quickly and unclearly through card text is not good practice. - On the same note, warrants matter. If an impact defense claim (with or without evidence) is made, and the team defending the impact answers only half of the defensive warrants, they’ve failed to answer half of the impact defense argument.
 * Some miscellaneous things: **