Beane,+Eric

**Name: Eric Beane** **Affiliation: N/A (Former: Katy-Taylor, University of Houston)**

***Current for the 2017-18 Season*** ***Update for East Texas NSDA*** I haven't judged in over a year so keep that in mind. My thoughts on debate have stayed the same.

I will evaluate your debate like any other policy debate round -- I am not a fan (and will probably get lost) in dense analytical frameworks.
 * Update for King RR***

**Policy Debate Paradigm** I debated for the University of Houston & have worked there as an assistant coach. Previously, I coached Katy-Taylor HS for 5 years. I mostly went for the K. I judge a lot of clash of the civs & strange debates. Have fun.

**Specific Arguments**

**Critical Affirmatives** – I think your aff should have some relation to the topic; we have one for a reason and I think there is value in doing research and debating on the terms that were set by the topic committee. Your aff doesn’t need to fiat the passage of a plan, or have a text, but it must generally affirm the resolution. Framework is definitely a viable strategy in some debates.

**Disadvantages** – I’m not the best judge for you if your strategy is a DA + CP in the 2NR. I will do my best to evaluate each argument presented. Specific turns case analysis that is contextualized to the affirmative (not blanket, heg solves for war, vote neg analysis) will always be rewarded with high speaker points. Comparative analysis between time frame, magnitude and probability makes my decisions all that easier.

**Counterplans** – I think that PICs can be an interesting avenue for debate, especially if they have a nuanced or critical net benefit. PICs bad etc. are not reasons to reject the team but just to reject the argument. I also generally err neg on these questions, but it isn’t impossible to win that argument in front of me. Condo debates are fair game – you’ll need to invest a substantial portion of the 1AR and 2AR on this question though.

**Kritiks** - This is the area in which I am the most experienced with and comfortable adjudicating. For the past few years my scholarship in debate has been primarily about critical disability studies and its intersections. I feel pretty strongly about those arguments but recognize the imperative to critique. I've also read variations of Nietzsche, Psychoanalysis and Marxism throughout my debate career.

"Method Debate" - Many debates are unnecessarily complicated because of this phrase. If you are reading an argument that necessitates a change in how a permutation works (or doesn't), then naturally you should set up and explain a new model of competition. Likewise, the affirmative ought to defend their model of competition.

Vagueness - Strangely enough, we begin the debate with two very different positions, but as the debate goes on the explanation of these positions change, and it all becomes oddly amorphous - whether it be the aff or neg. I feel like "vagueness" arguments can be tactfully deployed and make a lot of sense in those debates (in the absence of it).

We all need to be able to understand what the alternative is, what it does in relation to the affirmative and how does it resolve the link+impact you have read. I have no shame in not voting for something that I can't explain back to you.

**Case Debate** – I think that even when reading a 1-off K strategy, case debate can and should be perused. I think this is probably the most undervalued aspect of debate. I can be persuaded to vote on 0% risk of the aff or specific advantages. Likewise I can be convinced there is 0 risk of a DA being triggered.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Other Information**

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Accessibility -** My goal as an educator and judge is to provide the largest and most accessible space of deliberation possible. If there are any access issues that I can assist with, please let me know (privately or in public - whatever you are comfortable with). I struggle with anxiety and understand if you need to take a "time out" or breather before or after a big speech.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Evidence** - When you mark cards I usually also write down where they are marked on my flow –also, before CX starts, you need to show your opponents where you marked the cards you read. If you are starting an email chain - prep ends as soon as you open your email to send the document. I would like to be on your email chain too - ericdebate@gmail.com

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**High Speaks? -** The best way to get high speaks in front of me is in-depth comparative analysis. Whether this be on a theory debate or a disad/case debate, in depth comparative analysis between author qualification, warrants and impact comparison will always be rewarded with higher speaker points. The more you contextualize your arguments, the better. If you are negative, don't take prep for the 1NR unless you're cleaning up a 2NC disaster. I'm impressed with stand-up 1ARs, but don't rock the boat if you can't swim. If you have read this far in my ramblings on debate then good on you - If you say "wowzas" in the debate I will reward you with +.1 speaker points.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Any other questions**, please ask in person or email – **ericdebate@gmail.com**

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Lincoln Douglas Debate** - I understand there is more of an emphasis on theory in LD (and yes it is silly), so I will certainly listen to any theory debate that happens, but you should make sure to win your competing interpretations claim if you want me to evaluate something ridiculous. Additionally, having been out of the activity for a bit, these debates might be difficult to resolve. I view the "Standard / Value Criterion" like a role of the ballot. I'm not really a fan of many Kantians / Kantian FW; I'd prefer a round that either has a policy mechanism or a critical investigation into the topic rather than an incredibly dense framework. Everything is debatable though.