Rodarte,+Greg

Greg Rodarte Contact: greg.rodarte@gmail.com

Background: I debated for Damien in California for four years. I debated at Georgetown in Washington, DC for a little bit of time, but decided to pursue other interests.

I primarily debated in a “straight-up” fashion, often going for CP/DA/Case. This does not mean that I didn’t have my fair share of debates in which I went for the K or T. Do what you feel you are best suited at and make strategic decisions when going into the 2NR. The more specific you are in a debate, the better points you will receive. The only statement that I absolutely require of every debate is: The affirmative must have a topical plan and defend its effects.

Now onto the specifics:

ARGUMENTS

Topicality-I believe almost every debate is decided in terms of offense-defense. In topicality this is manifested in competing interpretations. Argue topicality like you would a disad. Debate the impacts (limits, ground, etc.) by giving concrete examples. For example, don’t just say “they make the topic huge,” or "we lose ground," give examples of cases they justify. When going for limits, I find it best to articulate a case list that they allow and you do not. When going for ground, examples of counterplans, disads, etc. that you lose, and also why these should be part of core negative ground. So what if the only thing you lose is an international cp if you don't articulate why the negative deserves that argument.I think the best interpretations are ones that are government-based because that is where the literature base is largely stemmed from. I find non-government based interpretations largely arbitrary. Solvency advocates are always required, and if the aff lacks a concrete one this can be turned into a theory/T argument. ASPEC, if you want to for strategic purposes, but don't make this your A strat. ASPEC is better used as a theory argument. Lastly, I can be persuaded to vote aff on reasonability, but I tend to think the negative’s impacts are impact turns to your “reasonably” topical aff.

Theory-Only bore me with this if you must, and I know sometimes, you must. SLOW DOWN in theory debates, especially in the 2NR/2AR. Again, argue this like a DA as well. Why does your loss of ground outweigh the negative’s loss of “flexability?” If these questions are left unanswered, I will probably err negative. I feel compelled to not vote for cheap shots, but if they are impacted cheap shots, it is a dropped argument. I think in a lot of instances, reject the argument not the team is justified. General Dispositions on theory arguments, but can be persuaded otherwise: Condo-OK, PICs-are Good, Conditioning-Debateable, more specific the evidence, the more legitimate, Consult-eh, if it is your thing. International fiat-no opinion.

CP/DA-These are good, as long as they have literature to back them up. Advantage counterplans are especially fun. PICs screw the aff, but isn’t that the point of debate? PICs are good. More specific the disad (disad link) is to the aff, the better the DA. Like every good argument, you should try to turn the case. Politics is a great one because it is constantly changing. Affs should use link uniqueness to their advantage more often. Rarely does a counterplan truly solve 100% of the case, which is why it is important to do a good deal of impact calculus and turn the case. Debating the "impact filters" will be a huge plus. Why should I put more weight in magnitude if the other team wins a quicker slightly-smaller impact? Affs should read add-ons that solve the DA impact or are solvency deficits to the CP. A good majority of my aff wins were won this way.

Kritiks-Contrary to popular belief, I’m not like every other Damien debater (past or present) who thinks the K is cheating. Well, ok, it is cheating, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be read and gone for in debates. I’ll be honest, I’m not well versed in a whole lot of K literature. You should make it easy for me to understand what you are arguing. Alternatives are important and should be crafted in a very special way. You should put quite a bit of thought into the way you word the alt. Same thing goes for permutations on the affirmative. It is nice when the permutation has a solid text and not just “do both.” The negative should try to be as specific as possible, and the affirmative should try to prove why the negative’s generic evidence doesn’t apply. I think almost every alt should solve the case (some way), be it solving the root cause (which doesn’t always address the timeframe), rejecting the representations, etc. The K should also turn the case. Affs are in a better position when they narrow the debate down to two-three questions of the K in the 2AR. This doesn’t mean forget the other mumbo jumbo they throw at you (like no V2L, plan doesn't happen, etc.). 2N should avoid using clutch phrases and ultra-generic impact claims in the 2NR. The Framework "frames" the direction of the debate. If one team absolutely loses the framework, I do not think you automatically lose the debate. Framework is no longer a procedural question, so arguments like ground, limits, etc. don’t pair up well with the negative’s representations, ontology, morality, etc cards. Last thing on Ks, both the aff and the neg need to put more time into dealing with permutations. I think often affs can win the debate if they spend a good majority of the 2AR on this, but at the same time, I think this is largely because the negative deals with it poorly after they have read their generic AT: Perm block. A permutation can be offense not just defense.

Performace-Coupled with a topical plan and defense of the action=interesting. For the sake of performing=a strike might be in warrant.

CROSS-X This is an art that truly few have mastered. Cross-x starts as soon as the speech stops and the first question should always be pointed and interesting, otherwise, unfortunately, I might lose interest. This happens to almost every other judge as well. Use this to call out shitty pieces of evidence. Read it aloud if you have to. Always think about the 2NR. What are you most likely to go for? Or what are your opponents most likely to go for? This doesn't mean spend all your time talking about one argument, but use the time to help frame the 2NR.

SPEAKER POINTS

29.5-This is given when a speech is approaching flawless. This person clearly deserves top speaker at the tournament. 29-This is given when a speech is amazing and closes all the doors. If two 29s are given in a round from me and they are on opposing sides, you clearly made it practically impossible for me to decide because of the awesomeness. This person should be in the top five speakers at the tournament. 28.5-This is given when a speech is clean, clear, and effective. Closes most of the doors and makes strategic decisions. This person should be in the outrounds at the tournament, and if has consistently debated like this, should be a contender for a speaker award. 28-This is the upper-end average. The speech was above-average/good, but you could work on a few things (probably stylistically). You are a contender for participating in the outrounds. 27.75-I wish I could give this, because it is the definition of average. 27.5-This is the lower-end average. The speech was average, and you should work on a few things (probably both stylistically and argument-based.) You are probably not a contender for outrounds if you average 27.5, but if this was just a poor debate for you, don't worry. 27-The speech was competent, but you should work on quite a bit of different things. Keep trying and working and you will improve. 26.5 and Below-Something went very wrong.

OTHER QUESTIONS Even-If statements are the best for a decision maker. Use them. Evidence Comparison-means I don’t have to compare for you, which often might end up badly. I’ll probably still call for some cards, but not an obscene amount. Qualification comparisons should occur. Defense, Defense, Defense. Defense wins championships in football, and a well-developed set of defensive arguments can win a debate. Even if you win a lot of defense, I will probably still give the argument some weight. This will only come back to haunt you if you've failed to make a solvency deficit to a counterplan. Given the rant, offense is just as important. I know you probably put a lot of effort into the debate, so I will put effort into fairly and adequately judging the debate. Clarity over speed, but that should be a given. Ask questions, do your best, but most of all HAVE FUN!

2011-2012 Update:

I recently judged 5 (four varsity and one JV) preliminary debates at the Georgetown Invitational. I also judged the doubles, octos, quarters, semis, and finals. I voted negative four times in prelims. I voted negative four times in elimination debates.