Affleck,+Dan

Name: Dan Affleck School: Barrington High School, IL

As a way of introduction, I am the head coach of the Lincoln Douglas Debate team for Barrington High School. I’ve been involved with debate since 1998. I competed for four years in high school and I've been judging since 2002 in both the local and national level tournaments. You will find me to be an open-minded judge with regard to theory, counter plans, etc.

During a round, I listen for a clear, logical link between your value and value criterion. I expect to see that this has been expressed through your contentions. Signposting is requested, because without it, it is difficult to flow the round. In cross, a good clash is welcomed and even encouraged, however, be respectful of your opponent.

Overview: I absolutely do not have any arguments that I will not vote for. Feel free to run genocide good arguments and anything you can think of as long as it is relevant and you have the evidence to back it up. I am a huge fan of debaters running non-stock (sometimes even counter-intuitive) arguments as long as they are well warranted, clearly link, and are well explained and extended. Stock arguments are stock for a reason. If you are thinking of running one of those cases be sure it and your presentation meet those standards or I will not find it a compelling reason to vote for you. A value or burden structure in cases is fine with me as long as there are clear impacts back to whatever the standard is.

Clash: One of the things I absolutely hate in LD is that sometimes there are rounds where two ships are passing in the night. By that I mean there is no clash. Fighting or agreeing upon a standard does me no good if I cannot clearly weigh arguments against each other in relation to the standard. Anyone who debates in front of me should never just extend their arguments and say that their opponent's arguments are stupid, or just fail to address them at all. I want to see comparative analysis between arguments, especially the warrants and impacts. The credibility of evidence is important but should be called into question as a last resort. The fact that someone is not qualified to speak about something does not mean they cannot make an argument with a compelling warrant.

Speed: I am fine with speed, but as most judges will say often times debaters are unclear when they speed. If you are unclear I will yell CLEAR. I will do this only twice, if you continue to read in a manner that makes what you are saying unclear I will flow only what I can hear, which my exclude some of your arguments on the flow. If your are clear when you speed there will be no problem.

Theory: I will absolutely vote on theory if there is real abuse in the round and if they shell is warranted and extended. I will also vote on RVIs because they are essential to checking abusive theory, but again they have to be well warranted and extended. In cases of potential abuse I need you to tell me why that potential abuse is so bad it warrants dropping the argument or the debater. I will default to dropping the argument if the impact of the theory is not made and extended. I believe theory is meant to check practices which are abusive and which may be repeated and replicated by debaters in an effort to win. Therefore since both dropping the argument and the debater stops that abusive argument from being successful and therefore its replication, I will need a reason why dropping the debater is preferable. Meta-theory is something I am unlikely to vote on but if your argument is especially compelling then I will.

Policy Arguments: I will evaluate plans, CPs, DAs, PICs, and any other policyesque argument that is run in front of me but again they must be well warranted and extended. Also because of the nature of these arguments I hold them to a higher standard of analysis. If you run a policyesque argument I want you to use a lot of comparative analysis in your arguments and I want warranted justifications why I should prefer your arguments in that analysis.

Kritiks and Critiques: I will evaluate a K and my standards are the same for the policyesque arguments which are explained above. I would really like to see a debater run a Critique which I have not seen very often. A Critique is not a K. A critique says the resolution is not debatable for certain reasons, but unlike a K it is not a disadvantage to a position or advocacy and does not provide an alternative. For example in the Res.: States ought prioritize the promotion universal human rights over national interest, a critique would say that you cannot debate the topic because promotion of universal human rights is the national interest and then would tell me to default one way or the other. A Kritik is different then a critique but as I said I will evaluate both of them.

Traditional LD: I do prefer traditional LD and more favorable speaker points can be awarded for having a round that goes this way.

Overall, my basis for decision is on the standards of your debate and how well each side links, impacts and weighs their arguments. Voting issues should be given on both sides and should be highly emphasized.

Good Luck!