Eisenstadt,+Michael

Name: Michael Eisenstadt School(s) Attended: Green Valley High School (NV), UNLV (NV) Rounds judged on the topic: 10 (Soon to be a large number) Number of years judging: 2 Years of policy experience: 6

My philosophy on almost every debate issue has changed very recently. That being said, I am willing to be very lenient and try to eliminate any and every disposition I may have in a debate.

If you don't have much time to read this...the short version:

A) I will listen to any argument, don't change your style of debate in front of me because if you're not doing what you do best, then you probably will not do as well. B) I generally side with the NEG on cp theory questions, and AFF on the competition of most cps, that doesn't stop you from running anything (in fact, I'm sort of known for rolling with process counterplans). C) I assume at the beginning of a debate that I am a policymaker unless told otherwise. D) T is a voter, do not make arguments about why it's genocidal--it's not, I am open to debates about what it means to be topical or defend the rez though. E) Funny+Bold+Smart = spkr points. Being a douche = 25 tops.

And, now--the more specifics.


 * Topicality:** I've always been under the school of thought that Topicality is a voting issue, and I generally err on the side of competing interpretations and offense/defense evaluation of what it means to be topical. On the other hand, with dumb violations that make no sense, I will err on reasonability if the aff ha a distinct reason they're reasonably topical. Just saying the word "reasonability" means absolutely nothing. I think most teams undervalue the impact debate to be had on topicality issues. Why does fairnes or education matter? What leads to a loss of them? These are things the block and 2nr should be explaining when going for it. I have not done much if any research on this topic, so you need to clearly explain the argument. I also REALLY like plan flaw arguments, I will reward the negative for finding distinct and intelligent plan flaws in the aff's plan text. Remember--a plan flaw is not always grammatical, sometimes its sensical. I am okay with dumb procedurals like ASPEC, OSPEC, well...A-Z Spec + other procedurals, but if you go for it, I don't know how I could justify giving you higher than a 27.5 (come on...you're going for a spec argument!). I'm also convinced about why jurisdiction matters.


 * Kritiks:** I'm more of a straight up kind of person, but I am very willing and interested in hearing your criticism. I particularly like hearing framework debates about why we should include/exclude XYZ arguments in debate. There is a high chance that I am unfamiliar with the literature you are reading; therefore, the negative and the affirmative should both be very deep on the explanation of their arguments. There are a lot of questions the aff does not resolve that let the negative get away with murder. These include, but are not limited to: Who does the alt? How does it solve the aff? Under what conditions can you kick the ALTERNATIVE? What does the alternative actually DO? It annoyes me when the negative is allowed to make utopian claims to solve ridiculously inevitable links. I think Ks without alternatives are non-unique disads UNLESS the negative has a framework that solves those links (i.e. if they're reps/discourse arguments). The literature that I am familar with is Empire/Imperialism and Psychoanalysis literature.


 * Framework:** Like stated above, I begin the debate thinking I'm a policymaker (i.e. I think the aff defends a topical policy action implemented by the USFG). However, both the affirmative and negative can convince to be something else. I will not endorse your politics as an individual refusal against X, I will however, listen to what the role of the ballot is. I think there are sort of two levels of framework debates...one that is a theory argument flagged as a voting issue, and one that just frames the debate. That means that framework can act sort of like a DA to the K, for example: They say The Rev and their framework is "debate is about methodologies" or something, if you win the framework that Ks are cheating, the K goes away. All of my analisys on T about education and fairness applys here also.

I will vote on args like PERM: DO THE CP if it is CONCEDED or if the justification for it is conceded.
 * Counterplans:** I think counterplans are key to negative strategy. That being said, winning PICs bad in front of me is pretty difficult. I would vote on PICs bad if it was like "multiple conditional PICs bad" or a floating PIKs argument. Smart PICs are probably better than process counterplans. I'm known for rolling delay and consult (doesn't it make you shiver?). So, I think the negative can probably say them. I am convinced by the argument that the negative should have a solvency advocate for the counterplan. I don't think the CP has to solve 100% of the case IF the net benefit outweighs the solvency deficit. The aff should not just rely on theory to say to a counterplan, they will probably lose. If you got nothing to say, at least make up some solvency deficit arguments and perm the cp...

PICs are good Conditionality is usually good unless there are multiple conditional worlds (then you can try and persuade me to vote aff). Dispositionality is probably just hidden conditionality. Permutations are a test of competition. PI**K**s are bad. CP specific theory is a good idea (delay bad, consult bad, agent cps bad, etc) International fiat is probably okay. Multiple permutations probably isn't too bad. When going for theory in front of me, I think you need to treat it like T in terms of competing interpretations and give specific reasons why the arg is good or bad. The 1ar needs to dedicate an ample amount of time. I think if the 2ar goes for it, it's all or nothing.
 * Counterplan Theory:** I'll make this easy:


 * Disads:** Probably the most important argument the neg gets. In terms of calculation, I think it is very hard to win a big enough risk of a disad to outweigh the entire case. If the 2NC/1NR turns the case and reads lots of new impacts, I think it's a possibility. What most negative's tend to lack is a depth of explanation of the scenario. That does not mean explain your scenario in your overview; rather, it means make analytical comparisons citing warrants to the evidence on each part of the debate (U, link, internal link, etc). Smart teams who make good arguments and comparisons tend to look much better perceptually in front of me. The most important analysis I burden on the negative is to weigh the disad effectively, trying to win a reason to give full weight to the disad (magnitude, timeframe, probability, but it goes beyond that). Do not say "politics disads are bad." I'll laugh and give you a 20. Politics disads are really good, especially when the negative has tons of cards.


 * Aff:** I expect the aff to extend case impacts, unless going for a straight turn. The aff tends to say a lot of business in the 1ac that never gets talked about after that (why are you reading it if you don't extend it?). I think the 1ac is eight minutes of offense to whatever the negative says. I think the 2ac should make strategic choices, ranging from the jettison of an advantage to deciding whether to link turn or impact turn. I also believe that the aff should utilize the ability to say ".0001% risk of an inevitable extinction impact--try or die for the aff." Calculations are extremely important.


 * The Crazy:** Look, I'll be honest. I'm not down for you stealing my ballot or doing something completely irrelevant to the topic. If you're going to do something super weird--don't pref me.


 * Speaker Points:** When you walk in I'm making the assumption you're somewhat competent (please don't prove me wrong). That means you're sitting at a 27-27.5. You won't get a 30 from me unless you say the secret word. The highest I'll give otherwise is a 29.5.


 * Cheap Shots:** I'll vote on them--doesn't mean you'll get very high speaks but I won't punish them either as long as they are in moderation.