Smith,+Sam

This page probably won't be enough to decipher what I would like to see in round, so please do ask questions if anything seems unclear.


 * Updated as per 5/5/2016 for the upcoming national tournament

I debated 3 years at Kapaun Mount Carmel and competed mostly in Policy Debate for 3 years. I went to the NSDA National Tournament my junior year and senior year in LD. I am totally fine with speed, jargon, and pretty much any argument as long as it is 1) impacted out properly while giving me a reason to vote either way, and 2) is NOT racist, sexist, or just a bad argument in general that should never be seen in round (that said, I would be willing to vote for more non-traditional or satirical arguments as long as they are in good taste).

I'll let you keep prep, but I hate prep stealers and will run your prep if you can't manage to make flashing work. Be clear on the tags and plan text, cp text, alt text, ect.

I debated in the Sunflower District in KS. It's really lay, but I debated mostly flow debate. I did Policy and LD, so i'll separate my paradigms for those two:

Topicality - I really don't like this argument too much when it's just a time suck. You should always have a viable way to win a T-shell. I believe the most compelling argument for me is a Topical version of the aff that doesn't wreck aff ground and gives stable links to the negative. If the debate gets messy and I cannot accurately see a way in which either side's interpretation is preferable, then I will unfortunately have to intervene. I have to warn that I am a bit aff biased on T, but for the High School Topic I might be more lenient to the negative due to shitty neg ground in general. RVIs are bad arguments and you won't win on one in front of me.
 * __POLICY__**

Disads - love em, should always be at least one in a structured 1NC (unless that's not your thing). I was a big politics debater in high school, and had a camp group dedicated to working on a Disad file and impacting it out. I prefer to see good analysis on the more tech level of the Disad (that being the link story and the internal link) instead of hearing 3 and a half minutes of impact calc.

CP - I hate cheating CPs, but I will vote on them if the aff fails to give a valid reason why the CP was cheating or illegitimate. The CP still has to have a net benefit and a cost benefit analysis. If it's delay or consult and you read no solvency ev, there's a big chance that I won't vote on that. I'm fine with most other CPs as long as there is a reasonable solvency advocate/net benefit.

Kritiks - <3 my fav. I was big into Anthro and Security my senior year as a debater, but I am not too well-versed into the more leftish and performative based kritiks, so you'll need to have good explanation on why the alternative is preferable to the 1AC and why the Kritik comes first on a given level, be that epistemology, ontology, or another weighing mechanism of your choice.

Framework - I put this separate from the K since this is a different category that I evaluate for my decision. I used to be aff biased on framework, but for me it can really differ in round depending upon both side's respective interp. I view framework a lot like T in that it's two competing worlds but there's different ways that you can weigh which interp is better outside the traditional reasons like fairness and education.


 * __LD__**


 * Disclaimer* I did not debate national circuit style, even though I went to nationals twice in LD. I debated a very traditional form of LD that is more focused on framework and work on the value/criterion/standard level. That said, since I am a policy debater at heart I really don't care what kind of arguments you run even if they aren't traditional on an LD basis. I've debated skep, determinism, ect. but would probably lose my place at some point when trying to evaluate both sides with these type of arguments. I've watched the TOC for LD and understand about 95% of the arguments, since most of it is just theory (T, drop the debater, or what have you).

theory - I'll judge this similarly to how I judge it in Policy. If the Aff has a plan text, this makes a lot more sense to me. If the Aff has no plan text and they should lose for some other theoretical objection, be good at explaining it. Unlike policy, I think that RVIs are legit and will vote on that.

Framework - I debated a lot of LD topics, and it seems to me that all the topics that were widely hated among the debate community were framework heavy topics; I had the same feeling when I did LD. I'd rather see structured cases than analysis on the topic, especially when you literally hear the same justifications and defensive/pre-emptive arguments for most cases.

Value/Criterion - you win this, you have a clean slate for my ballot. This is one of the many weighing mechanisms that most standard LD judges will use to determine who wins. You can tie this in with framework, or use case as a net benefit to your position to solidify why your answer to the rez is the most correct. Vague criterions that are not impacted out like maximizing justice/human rights will generally not win my ballot too often. I have an actual lit base in most of the junk that people use as criterions, such as util, deontology, kant, ect. so I'll understand most of the stuff that goes here.

As for DAs, CPs, Ks, the same thing goes for how I evaluate those in policy rounds.

SPEAKER POINTS: I think the inflation of speaker points has really made it impossible to separate great speakers from average speakers and use a scale that is higher than 4-5 points. That said, I usually start my points at 27.5 and go up from there. I'm taking the easy road and copy/pasting an assortment of what I think the points mean when I assign them via my assistant coach:
 * __OTHERS__**

25 or below – You were so offensive I almost told you to shut up. You're lucky my RFD wasn't as long as they would give me telling you how terrible whatever you said was. This also includes instances where I think you probably aren’t ready for the level of debate that I was judging at the time.

25.5-26.5 – You didn't use all your speech time, and/or your partner gave most of your rebuttal. You probably repeated yourself a lot and your speech, most likely, was not compelling at all. You also might have just been absurdly rude.

27 – You failed to extend warrants, your speech was so disorganized it hurt, and/or your rebuttal was clearly scripted. You made some kind of damning strategic error. I had to say clear twice and you still weren't clear.

27.5 – This is where I start. Your speeches were pretty average with no glaring strategic errors. You were decently clear, but by no means should you quit speed drills.

28 – Your strategy was good, but needs a lot of technical improvement

28.5 – You're fast and I understood almost everything you said. You're persuasive. Your strategy was efficient and effective.

29 – I understood everything you said. You obviously know your arguments well, maybe even cut the argument yourself. You were smart and aggressive without being rude at all. I had fun watching you debate.

29.5 – Your speeches were so devastating the other team had no chance. I heard every single word of every single card. You didn't rely on cheap arguments. Everything you said could've been the 2NR/2AR. This was a super easy decision.

30 – The flow of the speeches and the execution was perfect, i've never given out a 30 in any regular flow round yet.

General theory debates - I am aff biased on thoery, I will admit. That said, I won't just straight up vote for condo bad if the 2AR explanation is not consistent, responsive, impacted out, or generally warranted (i.e. if it was 2 worlds). I really don't like to deal with 30 different theoretical arguments on say 5 to 6 different pages, at that point it's a time suck and you will lose speaker points in front of me because that's not strategical. I don't believe in RVIs in policy, but I definitely believe theory can be impact turned like Topicality if there is good explanation and contextualization to the round.