Beauchamp,+Zack

So there’s a risk I’m going to judge you, or you’re bored enough to read this for fun (man, do I feel bad for you). Either way, you’re marginally interested in how I think about judging, so I guess I’ll try to give you some idea. I’ll start with some general points and then move on to how I look at specific arguments.

[Brief bio: I debated at Georgetown Day School for 4 years, where I won a few national tournaments and cleared at the TOC. Since graduating, I was an assistant coach at Bishop Guertin for 1 year and GDS for 2. In addition to this stuff and college, I’ve worked for the Rhode Island Urban Debate League in both coaching and administrative positions for 3 years.]

First, and above all else, go for whatever argument you think gives you the best chance of winning. The fact that I like some arguments more than others does not mean that I won’t vote for the ones I don’t like; in fact, you’re more likely to lose with me judging if you go for an argument because you think I like it than if you think you’re winning it. I really do try to judge debates based on the arguments in the round, so make decisions about arguments based on what you think your best positions.

Second, IMPACT CALCULUS! Do it. I heard this from judges all the time when I was debating and never took it as seriously as I should, but impact calculus determines who wins the debate. You could be getting killed on every other part of the debate and have worse evidence than the other team but still win with me judging if your impact calculus is better.

Third, line-by-line with numbering is appreciated. It makes debates cleaner, better, and easier to judge, all of which are good things for you.

Fourth, I prefer tailored strategies to the kitchen sink approach. A 1 off case-specific K or 2 off PIC and D/A strategy is more interesting than 6 unconnected off-case positions and random case arguments. This isn’t to say that you can’t do 6 off and case well (I’ve seen some very good strategies of this variety) or that you shouldn’t read random stuff if you think it’s your best strategy. Not at all. However, if you’re trying to decide between random stuff designed to spread out the other team and a smaller strategy, you should know that I prefer the latter.

Finally: Like most people, I like funny debates. Making fun of people I know is especially good. Also, don't be obnoxious. Especially don’t be racist/sexist/homophobic/anti-Semitic etc.; your speaker points will likely suffer and the other team can make a persuasive case that you ought to lose.

Now, regarding specific arguments: Disads: I like these, especially politics coupled with good case arguments. Be sure to explain how the link makes sense in the context of the plan and how the impact interacts with the case. I'm undecided on whether links or uniqueness are more important; that's something that will have to be debated out. Be sure to be very clear on internal link stories. I think the aff can win 100% takeouts to the disad with analytics about how stupid internal link stories are. Barring analysis at that level, I tend to default to offense/defense but can easily be persuaded otherwise (this is true for substantive arguments other than disads as well).

Counterplans: Depends on which one. I think specific PICs are probably the best arguments in debate; a consult counterplan will upset me (even more so if I have to vote for it). I'd really prefer not to have counterplan theory debates (unless the counterplan is really, really unfair). If you must have a "standard" theory debate, I'm most likely to vote on conditionality bad. I applaud creative permutations, but the “read every permutation I can come up with” is possibly the most irritating 2AC in debate. Perm theory is almost never a voter.

Kritiks: My favorite debates to judge when they’re good, and the ones I have the most experience with. This can be a double edged sword, however, as I do have a higher standard for kritik explanation. Specific analysis is crucial (this cannot be stressed enough; spend less time bloviating about ontological damnation or Deleuzian rhizomes and more time explaining how they apply to this aff, specifically). The more developed a K is in the 1NC and the block, the more likely I am to vote for it. I tend not to buy stock responses like realism good unless they are actually relevant to the specific criticism the negative presents (e.g., realism is a responsive answer to threat con but not usually to biopower) and explained as such. The aff should clearly explain how the permutation solves the negative's links (although I would love an explanation for each link, they can be addressed as a whole successfully). Also, don't be afraid to impact turn – I love to see affs answer terrorism Ks, for example, with “screw you, terrorists actually do want to kill us, and pretending they don’t only enables them.”

Fiat and Framework: The aff should get to weigh their case. The neg should get to weigh their K or their disad. It will be very difficult to persuade me that either the neg should lose for running a K or the aff shouldn't get access to their advantages. Both teams should be able to defend the arguments you present without relying on theoretical objections to skirt the other teams arguments. That being said, if I think you win framework, I won't refuse to vote on it. It’s just very hard, if the other team makes certain arguments, to persuade me that you’ve won it.

T: If this is a serious option in the 1NC, SLOW DOWN! T shells cannot be read like cards if you want me to understand your argument and subsequently vote on it. The same goes for T 2ACs; if I miss most of your 2AC on T, I'm not likely to be sympathetic to the "they dropped the e subpoint of the 2AC 14 so they lose because only our case is topical" argument. Affs should go for reasonability.

Theory: Same as T in that you shouldn’t read theory arguments like cards. Avoid tag-line debate (“conditional counterplans skew aff time and are a voting issue”) and instead give me warranted, explained arguments about why the only way to save debate from the menace of the other team’s arguments is to drop them. Analysis with reference to the specifics of the round is always a plus.