Forbes,+Jack

Experience (as of 2011 Glenbrooks): 3 years debating in high school, current debater for Northwestern, some judging experience (none on the Space topic)

Short version: I'm essentially tab - but don't run overtly homophobic/sexist/racist args (e.g. You can say rape isn't worse than death but don't say rape is awesome). Within tab, I prefer offense/defense over reasonability I'm open to any kind of arg, but if you absolutely insist on running weird args (e.g. Timecube, Zombie Apocalypse, etc.), have a good reason for running it (i.e. Normalization) I tend to prioritize framing args: Policy vs. Critical Framework on the K, Competing Interpretations vs. Reasonability on T, Impact Calc on Advantages vs. DAs, Education vs. Fairness on Theory, etc. I default policymaker, but I'm totally fine voting for a K/Critical aff. Role of the ballot is very important in this case. If it's early in the day, I probably won't be at full speed-listening levels, so maybe start at like a 7/10 and work your way up to a 9/10. Yeah, sorry. I know that sucks. Bear with me. I'll yell clear if I have to. For paperless: if you're hitting a non-paperless team, make sure they have some way of viewing your cards - you probably already have that covered. I don't count jumping the speech doc as part of prep, unless you are obviously stealing prep time. I don't give time signals - I always forget, and it'll mess you up. I assign speaks based on a combination of who I thought did the better debating and clarity (mostly who did the better debating, but I need to be able to hear your brilliant prose). I could care less how funny or how much of a tool you are (within limits - I probably draw the line somewhere around giving your opponents the bird and screaming at them in CX). If you're stuck running generics on the neg, here's my preference, from most likely to get my ballot to least: Politics+case, Topic-specific T arg, PIC w/ internal NB, topic-specific K, politics+process CP, impact turning everything I base my decision on what was in the last two rebuttals, and whether those args were present in earlier speeches (unless you have an awesome reason why new 2AR/2NR args are warranted) I will call for cards after the round that either a) I am told to call during the last two rebuttals, b) are contested by cite (their Harris ev actually says...), or c) they determine some important facet of the debate When I read cards, I first determine what I think the card is saying, and then whether that matches the spin made by the debaters.

PS: The phrase "Pepsi Challenge" doesn't mean what you probably think it means. It refers to that old publicity stunt where Pepsi did blind taste tests of their product vs. Coke, and then compared the results with taste tests where people saw which brand was which. Ergo, in the debate sense, "Pepsi Challenge" refers to explaining why exactly your arg is objectively better (e.g. Policy debates are better than critical debates, moral objectivity is better than moral relativism, Khalilzad is better than Dillon, etc.). It doesn't mean "find a line in your card that says X" or whatever. This is just a personal thing, it has nothing to do with how I'll vote or assign speaks.

Long Version:

__**The following are defaults that are only true if they aren't contested. If they are contested, I defer to the arguments made by the debaters.**__

Paradigm/General: Tab, but default to policymaker. See above for args that are never okay. I default offense/defense on all args, unless contradicted by something I write below. Argument Efficiency is good (Which is not necessarily the same as speed) Clarity is good Line-by-line is good Clash is good Policy Debate is good

T: I default to competing interps Fairness is better than education Inclusive definitions are better than exclusive We should prefer definitions that are better for the community than for individual rounds Potential Abuse is a voter Extra T is not a voter FX T is a voter T isn't an RVI

Framework: Policy-focus is better than critical focus (Just want to emphasize that **this is only a default, and not a bias - I'm 100% OK voting for K framework**) You should read a plan text Limits are good Switch-Side Debate is good Roleplaying is good Fiat is good

Ks: You don't need an alt if your K outweighs the case, but it probably helps if it solves - this should be delineated in the 1NC Your alt doesn't have to be state-focused Floating PIKs are abusive (i.e. PIKs are fine, but not if their alt isn't clearly a PIK in the 1NC...or maybe the 2NC) (Also, I'm familiar with some of the broader K lit, but it may help if your overview includes a basic summary of the K. Again, sorry, I know that sucks.)

CPs: My standard for abuse is having a solvency advocate Word PICs are legitimate Textual competition is sufficient, as is competition through net benefits Object Fiat is abusive International Fiat is probably fine, so long as it isn't Object Fiat Utopian Fiat is abusive PICs are legitimate Topical CPs are legitimate Severance and Intrinsic perms are abusive Delay perms are abusive Perm do the CP is legitimate Condo is legitimate Multiple Worlds are legitimate If the 2NR goes for a conditional CP, I can still default to the Status Quo even if I reject the CP

DA/Advantages: It's possible to win a 100% no risk of a DA through Link or Impact Defense Link turns are only true if they outweigh the link Non-unique means that there is 0 risk of uniqueness. All other args just lower the brink for the link Winning a risk of a link = you access the impact calc debate, not that you win the impact Link is more important than uniqueness

Impact Calc: Probability outweighs Magnitude and Timeframe Timeframe outweighs Magnitude Util outweighs Deontology Nuclear War/Nuclear Winter is not the same thing as extinction unless your card says so (i.e. it has the words "extinction," "end of humankind," "collapse of civilization," etc.)

Theory: (Most theory args are under their respective argument type) I default to rejecting arguments, not teams (unless the argument is something that has had in-round implications, such as multiple conditional advocacies skewing strategy. You need to be really good on why rejecting an arg is not sufficient to rectify the in-round or potential damage in order to overcome this threshold) - this is also my standard for cheap shots Fairness outweighs education