Chapkis,+Connor

The Meadows School '15 University of Southern California '19

UPDATE FOR EDUCATION TOPIC: I have done literally no research on this topic. I don't know the acronyms or the common arguments. Slow down and explain everything. Being smart and explanatory will do so much more for you than speeding through 30 two-line cards. Seriously.

__How to win in front of me: __ --Explanation - usually, the team that explains their arguments (and how they interact with the other team's arguments) more will win --Ethos is extremely important - if it perceptually seems as though you are winning the debate, then you probably are. You can establish your ethos in many ways: cross ex, persuasion, good evidence, quality of arguments, well-researched strategies, close and detailed line-by-line etc --**Quality of debating is heavily influential on the quality of argument** - if you debate a typically 'bad' argument extremely well, it is more persuasive to me; the opposite goes for a traditionally 'good' argument debated poorly.

__Other things to note: __ --Everything is debatable but speech times --I am fine with any type of affirmative or negative argument, and will judge them all without bias. --You can win zero risk of things fairly easily, whether it be a DA, solvency, etc. I don't necessarily always default to offense/defense, but sometimes it is a useful tool depending on the debate. --An unanswered argument is only as important as the debaters make it - if the block drops a permutation and the 1ar doesn't mention it, there's no way I'll evaluate it. However, if the block drops a permutation that was well-explained, it's very very hard for them to win the argument that the permutation was made on. --Taken from Scott: "the threshold for how good a response to an argument has to be is directly related to the quality of the initial argument" - if the 2ac says "we meet" and literally no other explanation, the block is justified saying "they don't meet". If the 1ar goes in depth on "we meet", I will 1. Be very skeptical allowing those arguments to fly in the debate and 2. Give the 2nr plenty of lee-way to answer the 1ar. All you have to do is explain your argument sufficiently when it is first made, and this problem won't arise. I will also reward the team that makes short, sufficient answers such as "they don't meet" with higher speaker points.

__Specific Arguments: __ --DAs - case specific >>>>>>>>>>> generic, although I recognize the need for generic disads sometimes. Not very convinced by "1% risk of a link means you vote neg" args, I'd rather have you be explaining the link in that time. Turns case is important. When debating disads on the affirmative, I think it's extremely important to have a strategy - if the 2ar is really really good on uniqueness, and spends like 3 minutes doing amazing explanation, it’s almost impossible for me to be convinced by negative 'try or die' arguments. --Politics - I think it’s a pretty bad arg, but the negative wins a lot by out-teching the aff. Either be super smart when you’re aff or be technically sound. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">--Counterplans - theory is really really important, because most counterplans are extremely theoretically illegitimate. In particular, the argument that 'counterplans that do/can result in the entirely of the plan are a voting issue' is very persuasive to me. I appreciate case specific pic's. Counterplans make zero sense against a team that doesn't defend a plan. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">--T - big fan, explanation o/w evidence, but cards are important for definitional purposes. Limits isn't really an argument, because there are an infinite amount of cases under any theoretical topic - I think of limits as the key internal link to ground, which is a much more important impact. Since teams rarely do impact comparison when going for topicality, if you do even a little bit you'll probably win. Reasonability isn't a real argument. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">--Kritiks - explanation is also very important. Usually, the team that talks about the aff more wins. Framework //can// be a reason that I shouldn't even look at the case, but it depends on how it is argued. Whether or not I have read the literature underlying your criticism should be irrelevant if explained well. Role of the ballot arguments are usually really self-serving, and I'll sympathize with affirmatives that do a good job of pointing this out. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">--Theory - conditionality is good. I have no specific "threshold" for how many conditional advocacies are allowed/not allowed: having 2 that are completely inconsistent is probably worse than having 3 that are consistent. Every theory argument is a reason to reject the team unless I am told otherwise. A lot of times, 'claims' are made in theory debates without being complete arguments - be wary of this. Similar to what I said above about topicality, teams don't do a lot of impact comparison on theory, if you do a little you'll likely win. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">--Framework - not really sure why teams are going for decision-making/education impacts on framework, fairness and predictability arguments are much more persuasive to me. Kritik teams will always have more game on the education front. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">--No plan aff's - enjoy them, and open to listening to them. The more the aff is about the topic, the less of a threat framework should be.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Also, I have a lot of friends in debate. Making fun of them/references to them is always appreciated, and same with general humor.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Be happy! Debate is fun, and I enjoy judging almost as much as I enjoyed debating. Some degree of sarcasm/wittiness is okay, but general friendliness is appreciated.