Roth,+Sam

Sam Roth Northside '15 University of Chicago '19

Background information I debated for four years on the national circuit at Northside in Chicago, qualifying to the TOC twice. I was a 2N for two years and a 2A for the second half of my career.

If you're looking to quickly pref me: -I'm a technical/flow-based judge -I'm "good" for the K -I'm sympathetic to framework on the neg

General thoughts-skip this if reading pre-round 1. I really like when debaters innovate and challenge assumptions like the offense-defense paradigm, traditional impact calculus, etc. This applies to everything from individual arguments to framing issues to overall strategies. I think these types of arguments make for more interesting rounds and give you an opportunity to demonstrate you can think and engage with opposing arguments beyond mechanically reading blocks. Too often I think debaters automatically accept simplified explanations for things and forget that we lose some nuance when we try to reduce it to tagline form. Take advantage of those weaknesses in your opponent's argument. This is also the best way to win if you know your stuff but, like I did, debate for a small squad and can't match the resources of some of your competitors.

2. Debaters are bad at flowing and speaking. This is true at just about every level of debate right now and it's the biggest problem most debaters have. It's a cliche at this point, but it's a shame how few debaters keep a good flow and maintain a logical form of organization throughout their speeches. I don't think enough debaters understand just how much their speaking habits and skills in these areas affect their win/loss record. A lot of close debates are lost because a speaker wasn't clear enough on how a particular argument interacted with what their opponent said, or because they simply weren't clear enough to understand. If you learn to flow without the speech doc, prep speeches around the flow, maintain this organization, and speak clearly, your chances of winning will be far higher.

3. Arguments don't get enough scrutiny. Although there's tons of information available through research, there's a tendency to make arguments based on general claims instead of specific facts and well-supported assertions. I think this problem exists in both "policy" debate and "non-traditional" debate. Often evidence doesn't come close to making a claim as extreme as the team advancing it. I've also seen a lot of cards that do defend their arguments but make vague, broad statements without much support. Neither of these strategies are effective. You should be able to defend your arguments, especially a 1AC, with a lot of specific evidence that you've read in depth, and call out other teams who don't do so.

Thoughts on specific arguments:

T-I tend to default to competing interpretations, but I haven't judged enough rounds or done enough reading on the topic to form any real preferences on specific arguments yet. I don't have an especially "high threshold" and I do enjoy literature-based, detailed T debates.

Kritiks-I love them on the neg. Not always a fan on the aff, and I'll admit I'm not a very good judge for those debates. I think effective K debate against a policy aff encourages a form of academic skepticism and critical thought that makes debates more intellectual and does a service to students. I think K affs tend to avoid the same level of depth, although I'm not dogmatically opposed to them if done well. I'll do my best to be tabula rasa, but like everyone else I have preconceptions and I think it's important to be honest about them.

Politics-in recent years, just a terrible argument. I barely saw a single politics disad my senior year that was even coherent. If you're going to go for politics every round, at least make sure the story of the disad makes sense as a whole, i.e. the link against a particular aff corresponds to the internal link story. I think the aff should incorporate analytic and carded arguments about why the disad is usually dumb into a more traditional strategy. Part of me is more sympathetic to intrinsicness arguments than a lot of judges are, but I've never seen it executed successfully unless it was dropped.

Theory-I hate egregious cheating counterplans. I've had plenty of debates and never heard a single good argument defending commissions, consult, Lopez, etc. I'm a tech-centered judge, so if you win theory I won't intervene and reject the counterplan, but it's not hard to convince me that these are abusive. I also lean aff on international fiat, but I understand the need for generics and can be persuaded either way. I think one conditional advocacy is fine, two is okay but contestable depending on the positions, anything more is really pushing it. This isn't just from a theory perspective, but also in terms of strategy I think it's silly to read so many offcase positions.