Levkovitz,+Roy

As I’ve gotten older (maybe grumpier too) more things seem to frustrate me with the debates I judge. I’m not sure if some of the debating has transitioned (note that means become worse) or I’ve become a pickier critic. I feel like this may become more of a blog post then judge philosophy but I promise it’s a good read one way or another. What does that mean for you or your team? I do not think a lot has changed about how I judge debates. I have not suddenly become a fan of arguments I previously despised but this should be used as a primer for how to improve your speaker points and increase your probability of winning in front of me.

I will do my best to not intervene in the debate as much as possible but anyone who says that they are not more or less convinced by certain args is lying, so below I will try to identify those

What happened to the Meta-Debate? In a rush to do speaking drills, and get out as much evidence as possible, key things have noticeably disappeared from debate. You grow up seeing people read real fast and are like oh if I do that I’ll win a lot. Well you’ll win a decent amount, but to take it to the next level you need to do the things below. I feel like if you do more of the things in this section you will win many more debates not just in front of me but everyone 1.) Clarity- I don’t plan on flowing every single word you read or say (make a joke about me not flowing, I still flow better and more then your coach I promise) but I would like to not have to struggle to figure out what those words out. 1ac’s performative value has disappeared.

2.) Key argument emphasis- The other speeches seldom slow down and emphasize key arguments, most of it is a random array of blitzing through arguments. I can count the number of times my kids and others have walked out of rooms saying we just got screwed XYZ judge just didn’t understand our argument. Are you really naïve / cocky / dumb enough to think that they didn’t get it? If you win the debate I promise I’ll vote for you, but if you don’t do the work to win the debate I won’t gift it to you.

3.) Even if statements. While you obviously always think your opponents arguments suck, I don’t necessarily always agree. Why don’t you tell me about how even if they win xyz crappy argument that you should still win because of ABC? This is why coaches want their kids to judge debates more. The perspective you gain from the back of the room helps you know how to sell your argument. Your goal is not just to be right, but to easily convince me of it. Decisions take much longer because this is missing from so many debates

4.) The big picture story from the 2nr and 2ar has disappeared. If you poll most judges I think they can tell you 1 min into the 2ar whether or not the aff or neg is going to win the debate. What does this mean? This relates slightly to #3 but, a coherent and cogent story from the 2nr and 2ar makes your arguments not just individual points on a larger piece of paper but a more cohesive story. If more 2ars began with we’re winning a pretty big risk of our aff vs a beat up da and cp that doesn’t solve for part of an adv that has a big and quick impact, then they’d win a lot more. This story can be applied to Das, Cps, Ks, T. While more time is spent on impact assessment then before how that all makes a story is missing.

5.) Evidence comparison anyone? It seems like since 2002 anything with a tag, cite, url and some text is considered evidence. Notice how “quals” is missing from that. Aside from the fact that evidence is usually so bad, its qualifications are often worse. Teams do not invest sufficient time into beating up people’s evidence. Where is it from? Who wrote it? Is that person qualified? When is it from? Does it have a warrant? Does It even say what its tagged? I am convinced a 2ar could beat up most politics disads by just indicting the evidence, mocking it for quality, and extending the aff. I will not do the work here for you. I will not read another team’s evidence and say because it was bad I won’t vote on it unless YOU TELL ME TO DO THIS. Maybe judges are to blame for accepting too much, but the relative non interventionist in me finds it reasonable that teams should have to point out their evidence is bad. While this might encourage people to cut bad “cards”, they will get their act together when they lose on bad evidence.

The specifics T- I can honestly say I haven’t judged many T debates this year and that’s not necessarily a good or bad thing. It seems like it would be hard for T not to be a debate about competing interpretations. Saying competing interpretations is bad, unless the violation is completely ridiculous is in and of itself ridiculous. If the neg is the only team that has defined something and you don’t meet it, and you have not posited an alternative definition of a phrase it should be hard for you to win. Obviously some violations are so exceptionally bad or ridiculous that needing a piece of evidence is unnecessary, but if it is close to reasonable you should counter define the term. Teams should replace the time spent on competing interps bad to what it really is, overlimiting interpretations are bad. I am not of the immediate belief that more is always bad, but the affirmative usually concedes this making it harder for them to win. In round abuse is always nice, but case lists and possible unreasonable affirmatives your interpretation excludes / theres includes is really convincing. __Assuming the affirmative does not meet the negative’s interpretation the 2nr and 2ar on T should be focused on how does the debate topic look under each team’s interpretation and why is their world superior to the others__. Defense is under utilized by the aff to mitigate the potential reasons why their interp is bad.

DAs- Are good? The last 2-3 yr’s we’ve seen an increase in the amount of DA turns the case, this is positive. The negative can be better on making real arguments about how the Disad accesses the case. The affirmative needs to stop dropping these arguments in the 1ar and 2ar, it will cost you the debate. The affirmative needs to be more aggressive on making reasons the aff either turns the da or accesses the DA better. Most disad impacts are centered around a core set of impacts, economy, hegemony, prolif, terrorism. Mot aff advs have those same advantages, why not make the arg that you solve for the disads terminal impact on a larger scale, with a stronger i/l? Obviously if you are neg the inverse is good to do too.

CPs- I’m a big fan of the CP. The CP makes the 2nr’s story telling time easier. Rather then having to eat up part of the aff, a cp gets to solve some of it. Going for them with a net benefit is a good idea.

CP Theory. Can we get over protecting the negative? There has been more fear mongering on protecting the negative then there has been about global warming. Should the negative have some flexibility? Yes. Should the negative’s flexibility be so ridiculous that it can do almost anything it wants under the guise of neg flex? No. While the negative almost always comes out ontop in these debates, the reason is not because they are on the side of truth but that the affirmative does not do a good enough job here. Theory debates requiring thinking about the issues and selling a story (note this is not the first time I’ve discussed story time). I do think some judges have become complacent with letting the negative do what they want, but that’s usually because the aff isn’t normally good on theory.

Dispo/Conditionality I am probably more lenient to the negative here within reason. 1 Cp and 1K is probably not a stretch. Go beyond that and it becomes a stretch. It is usually hard to prove real IR abuse or even potential abuse in this scenario. The 2ac should be able to make good strategic choices, and for the most part the 2ac usually reads add ons on the cp and not Das to the cp, so the argument that time spent there is wasted usually holds little water.

PICs- Topic specific policy based pics are for the most part legitimate. It would be tough to vote down the CAP CP vs Cap and Trade cause it pics out of trade. I feel like using literature as a basis for deciding the legitimacy of the cp is the most fair way for both sides. The Clean Energy pic vs the Alternative Energy plan is probably fair. There is literature that differentiates between the two and discusses its applicability in policy context. The PIC out of the word operations because operations as a term is bad is weaker. Having a card on a term being does not mean you have literature on it. Having a card that compares 2 different terms and makes the case for one term does mean you have literature on it?

Consult, States, International etc I can group these CPs for the most part. These Cps are usually intellectually bankrupt. A lot of discussion has happened on Edebate that I won’t rehash here but you can find the link to here [|http://www.ndtceda.com/ pipermail/edebate/2009-April/ date.html]. I am growing less and less convinced by phrases like “key to test the usfg” and phrases like that. I will go back to the literature standard for these CPs. Is there sufficient aff and neg literature on the issues to make a debate possible and worthwhile. This might also apply to long list CPs. Yes it is likely that doing 600 different things for hegemony might solve hegemony fairly well, but have you ever heard congress consider 2 bills for hegemony one that did 600 different things and one that did the plan? ** I’m not sure that the 2ar has gone for theory or gone for theory and won in front of me this year. So this does not mean that you cannot read states, or consult, or a dirty word pic or list cp in front of me. Just be aware that if an affirmative team is strong on reasons why its bad you will need to invest more time on defending the theoretical legitimacy of your advocacy.

RANT- Reject the Argument not the team I cheated on a test, and am conceding that was wrong, but because I didn’t cheat on all of the questions on the test if I get enough questions right to give me a passing grade I shouldn’t fail. Try that on your teacher next time and let me know how it goes. If a CP is abusive and changes the nature of the debate somehow it should be a reason you should lose. If it is only a reason the CP goes away the opportunity cost for the negative to try to abuse the aff goes up. It doesn’t encourage good behavior to just let the CP go away. Again affs usually bad on this.

The Kritik- Man do I vote neg on the K a lot. No wait, wait a second, I haven’t started wearing hemp shoes, not showering for days on end, or even reading Heidigger and Zizek for fun. I vote negative due to affirmative incompetence. If 2as were doctors I’d sue them for negligence the problem is so egregious. Lets play a little game here. Lets say I read a CP that’s text was something like oh imagine a world where capitalism didn’t exist. In the 2ac would you make an argument about why trying to do that was illegit? Would you even go so far as to say it would be impossible for this marvelous sounding counterplan to work?

News Flash 15 years later. The Kritik is an abusive CP with a non unique DA net benefit. The Key to winning or losing my ballot on the K is whoever does the most work on either selling or discrediting the alternative. If the negative wins the complete impact to their K (assuming none of it involves turning the case, and maybe even if it does) but does not win that they can effectively change the system they will lose. Making root cause of arguments on the neg is also good. Usually the more radical the K the less I’m down for it. I will not read the evidence to try to figure out your argument. Tag line extension like extend bleiker its conceded doesn’t do it for me. If you are aff win the alt doesn’t solve the case, the case is a da to the alt.

Preformance- I am generally not a fan of these arguments, but am open to hearing them. I sort of feel like you have to deal with the topic some, talking about debate being racist, etc might be true, but not pertinent to the agreed upon resolution. If you do choose to go for these arguments in front of me, please tell me what the role of the ballot is. While I might not ideologically agree with you, I still might vote for you, so is the nature of this competitive activity. Don’t ask me not to flow, and don’t poop in a bag.

Cross-X I give a lecture on this at camp. It’s the most important part of debates other then the 2nr/2ar. Use that time for good questions, reading and making fun of teams evidence. Setting teams up. If teams used this time more effectively they would win sooo much more. 1as should be crushing disads when they cross x the 1n. 1ns should be mocking 2acs for poor evidence and arguments that don’t make sense. Etc etc. Speaker Points Points are out of control. Its just that simple, my scale is below Base- 26.5-27- thanks for playing OK- 27- you have potential but not there yet, lots of problems some good stuff Good 27.5-28- solid debater, mistakes in addition to good stuff, you know what’s going on but weren’t top notch (even tho I’m sure you think you were) Real good- 28.5- you could be in the elims of the toc Great- 29- its tough to imagine you lose this debate, almost everything is done right and you sounded well doing it Incredible 29.5. you did everything right You won’t see a 30 so don’t worry about it

Ethos versus Ass- There is a fine line between being a jerk and being funny and good. If you aren’t sure you can be funny and good at the same time your probably coming off as an ass. While it is important to ooze confidence be conscious of how you are doing it. It is a big turnoff when its done vs teams you are already a lot better then, and when its just uncalled for. Being funny will help you, if you need a primer on that you should watch videos of someone like Seth Gannon debate, he managed to walk the line well.