Langerman,+Aaron

//**__FOR NATIONALS__: I prefer well-developed, logical, and well-research arguments, rather than contrived internal link scenarios, squirrelly/shady arguments, and blippy line-by-line analysis. Most circuit rounds sacrifice good argumentation. Especially if I’m judging you at league, state, or nationals, I do NOT want you to treat me like a pure circuit judge. I would rather you go slower, make smarter arguments, and really explain the warrants of your claims. I will always prefer well-developed arguments over trying to go for blippy “dropped” arguments. Also, if I’m judging you on a panel with other judges in league, state, or nationals, please make sure to adapt to the other judges. If they are lay judges or do not have circuit experience, do not go fast to try to cater to me. The more specific your arguments and the stronger your evidence, the more I will be inclined to vote for you. Moreover, in the rebuttals, in-depth framing explanations hold a lot of sway to me; in other words, explain how I should evaluate the major questions/arguments of the round and how I should evaluate your arguments against your opponent’s argument.**//

I echo Will Rafey's sentiments: "I tend to err towards teams that do substantial and intelligent impact calculus that starts early in the debate, whether that's impact calc on a politics disad, the k, theory, topicality, or framework. Comparative analysis is perhaps the single most important part of debate, and teams that do it well will be rewarded. I think one of the most fantastic things about debate is the research. The best debates are always those that center around good case-specific research, and I enjoy them the most."

My experience: I debated in high school for Bellarmine College Prep (San Jose, CA) from 2007-2011 and went to Michigan 7-week during that time but did not debate in college -- so I was out of the circuit for a couple of years when identity politics K and planless affs became popular. Now, I'm a coach at Bellarmine. I've judged at some of the big tournaments (Michigan, Glenbrooks, Berkeley, etc.) but I would still recommend going a bit slower, especially on theory arguments, if you want to make sure that I'm able to flow everything. That also means that you should explain your warrants and arguments more than you might for other judges.

Here's my fast paradigm:

__**Policy**__ For straight up debates, the more case-specific you are, the better. Far too many teams do not engage with case in a substantive way. Also, don't be afraid to make analytics – smart, true analytics hold a lot of sway with me, and it’s very strategic to have them in the 1NC and 2AC. If I see that you’re actually engaging the debate and critically thinking instead of just reading blocks and ignoring what the other team said I will be much more willing to give you higher speaks. That said:

Topicality – you must do a good job of explaining your interpretation and why it’s good for debate (or why allowing the aff to be included in the topic is bad for the topic), as well as the terminal impacts to your claims about predictability and fairness and education, etc. I generally err towards interpretations that are the best for the literature base of a topic -- for substantive, deep debates at the core of the resolution -- rather than arbitrary lines which found their entire argument on generic disad link distinctions. Good topicality debates should be grounded in excellent evidence (T- subs. is w/o material qualifications is a good example of a violation that does not fulfill this criteria).

DA – I love strategies that are either CP/DA or even DA/case. As a 1N/2A, I took the DA a lot in the 1NR and loved doing 2ARs against the DA. Generic DAs are okay, but I’m going to like you a lot more if you’re reading a tight case-specific DA that has good, specific links and internal links. DAs with clearly contrived, shitty internal link stories are frustrating to me, and if you’re a 2A PLEASE make analytical arguments against the internal link.

CP – case-specific PICs are tight, generic CPs are not my favorite (I’m talking about consult NATO here…). If you’re doing a CP/DA strategy, it’s really important for the 2NR to do impact calculus on how I should evaluate the CP and DA with a lot of “even if” statements (“and even if there’s a risk of a solvency deficit, the DA still outweighs b/c….”)

Case – I LOVE case and I think it’s totally viable to win a debate with a simple strategy like case-DA (my partner and I loved doing this on the military topic with case and a deterrence DA). Case is what these sorts of debate SHOULD be about, in my humble opinion. Don’t let the 2A get away with the entirety of case and you have to defend on a CP to win! Make them defend the plan, and point out its flaws.

__**K debates**__ I enjoy the kritik (in fact, great K debates can be some of the most fun rounds to watch) and I'm familiar with much of the K lit - but don't assume I know what you're talking about. Take time to explain the core thesis of the K in the neg block (or 2ac) and especially the link story. Contrived and jargon-filled tags that lacks substance but just tries to sound smart / catch the other team off guard is a huge pet peeve of mine. For the aff, definitely poke fun of the link, as well as the alt - if the K cannot explain an articulate non-generic formulation of these parts of the debate, it'll be hard for me to vote for the kritik. I'm fairly knowledgeable with regards to the K literature base, particularly Foucault, Nietzsche, Bataille, Marx, critical IR, but that means I hold kritiks to a high standard of explanation: I will not vote against a team for an argument I can't explain to them. If you are reading some variation on Lacan, for instance, you'd better understand exactly what kind of argument you're making.

Also, please do not read framework at the same pace that you would read a card. Especially when you are talking about the role of the ballot, slow down a little. You want me to have that on my flow.

__**Identity debates**__ I'm open to debates on identity politics. I do believe they force debaters to grapple with ideas that are ultimately good for the community to confront. If the aff is related to the resolution (i.e., an interrogation of the way in which surveillance has been used to subjugate minorities, for instance), even if it does not pass a plan, I am less likely to think that the aff explodes limits. If the aff is not related to the resolution, then FW holds much more sway with me. That said, FW is still a totally viable option against these sorts of arguments so don't be afraid to run it. The most important thing for FW debaters is to not just focus on the line-by-line. In these sorts of debates, the identity politics teams typically win through in-depth overviews that impact turn essentially everything on the line-by-line. You HAVE to respond to their top-level impact claims - it's hard to pull the trigger in this type of round on dropped argument on the line-by-line if you haven't been addressing the framing of the debate itself.

If you have more specific questions, please ask me before the round.