Culver,+Spencer

Debated for 4 years at Park Hill High School in Kansas City, Missouri 2nd year NDT/CEDA debater at the University of Wyoming

I've judged about 5 debates on the Oceans topic, so explain your acronyms to me.

These preferences are how I've seen debates from my experience competing and judging. I will default to whatever framework/role of the ballot/etc. given to be by the debaters and won by the debaters. You should act as though I have no prior background in whatever argument you are reading, as in, it will behoove you to explain the argument you are reading very clearly to me because i'll understand it more, understand interactions between that argument and others, etc.


 * __General__** - Make choices-- If your 2nr/2ar is spent going for what your best args are and you are doing comparative analysis of how those arguments implicate and affect the other team's args then you are //INCREDIBLY// more likely to win the debate in front of me. Far too often 2NRs and 2ARs just focus on winning every argument and let the judge do the comparison between arguments and impact calculus, which is not where I feel many debaters want to be at the end of a debate. Write my ballot for me, make even if statements, and turns/outweighs arguments. It will make you better and you'll win more.

__**Framework**__ - I've done both sides of this, I read a critical affirmative and on the negative I read framework too. Framework debates are perfectly acceptable, but can be done very poorly. If this is your A-strat, then weigh the impacts of your interpretation (decision making, stasis, or whatever your impact is) against the aff team's impact turns. Tell me why decision making skills arguments trump education, access to debate, or their politics. Framework is most of the time a question of competing interpretations, though I can be persuaded otherwise. I would rather see a debate where the neg substantively engages with the affirmative, but, in certain circumstances, you have to read framework and I understand that.

__ **Topicality (against policy teams)** __ —If both teams adhere to topically affirming the rez, I'm a big fan of topicality debates. Topicality is always a voting issue. RVIs are never acceptable, you do not win because you met one burden of the affirmative. Topicality is most likely a question of competing interpretations, but reasonability can be won by the affirmative if they provide why they are reasonably topical (at least enough to defend against the negative's standards). Topicality debates are debates about impacts to your interpretation, so approaching it with great care to the impacts of your interpretation and the disads to theirs is more persuasive in front of me. T debates are always better if you have carded standards and violations. The 2NC ought to include a list of affirmatives that fit under their interpretation.

__ **Critiques** __ — These are fun positions, but I feel like a lot of K debate is K debate done poorly. A clear articulation of your link arguments is very important. If you can find links in their evidence and read them in your speeches or bring them up in CX, that's awesome. Many critiques have nebulous impacts, so you should provide examples of your impacts and/or ground them with historical examples. If you're reading your security K against a policy affirmative, giving me a specific example of the "endless violence" the aff causes is vital, because it's quite easy for the aff to provide specific reasons why securitization is good in the context of the affirmative (i.e. case outweighs, our advantage is specific to why securitization is good). I'm moderately well versed in critical theory, but don't assume I know all about whatever author you're reading. A 1-off K strategy is fine, but case defense is important to winning a critique. In certain situations, if you win the framework debate, I can be persuaded that the aff doesn't actually do anything, and the K is the only option. But, passing a plan through the USFG by having a debate round is as unlikely as a total ontological shift of the population, and you should realize that. If you get to fiat whatever your alt is, the aff should be able to fiat whatever the plan/advocacy is. For the aff, more teams need to buckle down and impact turn the K. If you're reading an economy advantage, you shouldn't try and shift out of that in the 2ac to avoid the link to the cap K. Defend your aff.

__** Critical ** **Affirmatives** __ - These are fun when executed properly, but painful when executed poorly. Don't be the latter. You can have a link to the topic or not, I don't care. Often these are the most interesting things I will hear at a tournament, but interesting does not always mean good. If you read a K aff, don't feel like you need to adapt to me. As long as the criticism is explained clearly, I'm more than willing to listen to these.

__ **Disadvantages** __ —You should read them. The quality of link and internal link evidence is most of the time what I find to be most important. DA and Case debate is fun to judge, impact calculus is very important. If the aff team is link/impact turning you or you are link/impact turning the aff, do comparative analysis of the evidence read in the debate, and it'll much easier to win your offense in the debate.

__ **Counterplans** __ — CPs are fun, read them. I'm much more persuaded by a specific CP to solve the aff than I am a generic process CP or a stale word CP. Pulling out solvency from aff cards is excellent. Do technical, in-depth analysis for solvency and when responding to solvency deficits.

__ **Case** __ —Good case debate is often the most fun type of debate to watch. If the negative has sweet, specific answers to the aff and a DA with good link evidence, I will enjoy the debate a lot, and your speaker points will improve.


 * Theory ** - I tend to side with the neg in theory debates. Theory is most likely a reason to reject the argument, not the team. Obviously I can be persuaded otherwise, if the neg reads 6 conditional positions, that's a rough time, and you should read theory. Most often, I have seen theory as a parachute to pull in the 1ar if you feel you are losing the debate. If you want to go for theory, go all in for it in the 1ar. It's much harder to give a 2nr just on condo good than one where the aff half-heartedly goes condo in the 1ar.

__ **Paperless** __ **—**prep stops when you are beginning to save the document on a flash drive or attaching the document to the email. Don't use this as an excuse to steal prep, because I'll be upset and your speaker points will suffer.

I think this covers most things. If you have a more specific question, just ask before the debate.