DeLong,+Brian

Brian DeLong
STARTING THIS GANGSTA SHIT– you should use this judging philosophy as a soft guideline. At the end of the day the debate round is yours. This means you need to tell me what the important issues are, and how I should adjudicate them. Although I have preferences, they are not rigid, I will attempt to retain an open mind and be minimalist with my intervention.

Alternate Use Time - My first experience with this was at UTD, I enjoyed it. If the two teams come to an agreement before the round to have AUT--I'm cool with it.

My voting record thus far – 11 Aff 25 Neg (College Topic)

Overview – I like policy debate. The negatives job is to prove that the plan is undesirable through a competitive counterplan, or the status quo. Specific disads and counterplans are preferable. The job of the 2nr and 2ar is to crystallize important arguments, do impact calculus that clarifies the global vision of what I’m voting for, and win the debate on the flow. I enjoy watching debaters that can tell a clean and concise story behind the arguments that they are running.

I’ve found that evidence on important issues of this topic can be quite poor. It’s the job of the debater to spin their evidence in their favor. If I have two cards with competing claims with no way to decide which one to prefer, I will not be happy. Do this work for me.

Counterplans/Disads – Should you run them? Yes. Now a more important question, why have I voted negative 25 times this year? Typically the counterplan has solved for most of the affirmative with a residual “risk of a link” to the disad. I will default to the offense defense paradigm if you let me. Debaters should do a better job at defending their 1ac vs. the solvency of the counterplan…. You know they’re coming which means you should probably have at least one advantage that they can’t solve for. The other problem that I’ve had is a failure of the 2ac and 1ar to connect with the permutation and what it means in relation to the counterplan netbennifits. I can certainly be persuaded to vote on no risk of the netbennifit vs. higher risk of solvency deficit to the counterplan.

Speaker points – Teams now need a 28.3 to break these days??!?!?! Insane. I reward speaker points using the following criteria: smart arguments, speaking clearly, utilizing their speech and CX as well as they can, effective use of strategy, and going for the right arguments, being nice. I enjoy jokes, but only use it if you can pull it off… My points: Below 26.5- you annoyed me, 26.5- you have things to work on, 27-27.5 is average. 28 – Parts of your speech impressed me, you responded to arguments well, with only a few mistakes 28.5 – only minor mistakes but overall a good round. 29 – great speech, cross-x was useful, I can think of only a few things you could done better, overall I’m happy. 29.5 – this won’t happen very often, I have to be wowed. 30 – I plan on handing these out on a rate of “higher than rare.” Perfection is impossible to attain, but nearing that mark just might get you one of these. If I hand out one a year I would be surprised. Due to the inflation of points I will begin using tenths of points more often.

Theory – First—I try to keep a tight flow, but please don’t read your theory blocks like they are the text of a card, few people in this community have the ability to flow everything you spew at top speed, and sadly I’m not one of them. Utilizing sign posts, letters, numbers, pauses, will help you retain speaker points.

Second – I tend to have a high threshold for theory. I would prefer substance over a cheap shot, or a poorly extended theoretical argument any day. With that in mind, I do recognize the need for debate to be fair. Out of pure laziness my default paradigm to evaluate theory is offense v. defense. However, you should know that I have been persuaded by reasonability from time to time. Extensions of unwarranted claims of “ground loss,” or “time skew” etc. are not very helpful, and truly lack a persuasive element that I find critical to distinguish between competing arguments. If the other team rightly points out that your arguments lack substance and are just an attempt to whine your way out of a debate round that you’re losing, I may lack sympathy for you. If arguments are dropped you should point this out and then go the next step at preventing obvious cross-applications in the 2ar/2nr, if you can do this cleanly you’re probably in the clear. When going for theory you should compare your interpretation to your opposition's with how I should weigh the standards like education, ground, time skew and so on against each other.

Third -- In general, theory does not have to be boring… the team that best adapts their genero-theory blocks to the debate round by providing specifics of abuse, and “education” lost or whatever else will be rewarded.

Finally– This topic’s counterplans. I find theoretical complaints against counterplans on this topic to be upsettingly underdeveloped. My judging record (and others in the community I hope) indicate that it is hard to be affirmative on this topic. I have yet to hear a CP on this topic that has tripped my “this is cheating” intuition. Objections to fiat legitimacy when the negative uniformly and instantly implements multiple actors action(all the states + all the federal courts + congress CP etc.) have not been well deployed. The constitutional amendment CP is a prime example. Should the negative get multiactor fiat that instantly results in the amendment passage? It depends on whether the ground left for the affirmative is “fair,” beneficial for the activity, and predictable. What does the literature have to say about this issue? How does that implicate one’s ability to generate offense/defense? One aff team came close to getting my ballot on these question, but managed to lose on the arbitrary nature of their constraint. 1ARs you should think strategically if you want to extend this argument in front of me, is it worth the time you’re spending if you can’t develop the argument enough? In a close debate I’ve found myself leaning negative due to unanswered well developed 2nc/1nr arguments. Yes 1ARs are hard, so make it easier on yourself by picking and choosing what you should extend.

Topicality - Default – topicality is a gateway issue that defines the parameters of the debate. You are fighting an uphill battle if you don’t want to engage the topic. (Although I wouldn’t be upset if a negotiated impact debate happened in front of me). I am undecided on what the best interpretation of overrule is. Obviously there’s an inherent tension between aff flex and spilling over to an unreasonably large topic. I know the most about Milliken, some about Quiren, and Morrison, and little to nothing about all the holdings in Casey. Clear definitions of the holdings, and what overturn means are critical.

Kritiks - I’ve ran them, but I’ve also beaten them on framework. First and foremost when challenged the team should justify the existence of the kritik. Why is this argument relevant? Secondly, how do I evaluate this argument in relation to a plan? A framework for evaluating the alternative vs. the plan should be clear, the earlier this comes in the debate the better. Aff – win that your plan matters, the alternative solves nothing, is not relevant, does not “turn the case,” you outweigh, link turn the K, and/or my favorite impact turn. Generally I feel most kritiks are glorified counterplans. The aff should engage the argument that way.

I’ve tried to understand most of the critical literature out there but you should know my background. I was a communication major, and am now a comm. grad student. So, don’t expect me to understand everything Zupancic’s, Zizek, or Hegel has ever written. For the sake of your speaker points, and even the ballot you might need to bring down the technical lexicons of psychoanalytic speak to a “DeLo friendly level” if you want me to understand your argument.

Performance – If you run performance you are going against the grain of what I tend to listen to and understand. If you prove the relevance of the argument, and why it’s good for debate you should be ok. My education on poetry has been ass awful. I lack the cognitive power to listen to and comprehend 9 minutes of abstract poetry. But I do recognize that abstractions, emotion, ethics, ontology, metaphysics etc. are necessary components of weighing logical inconsistencies against each other. If I don’t understand your performative argument you are in trouble. I think this form of debate has some potential, and can be done well… but like any debate if you do it poorly you’ll probably lose my ballot.

Pet Peeves – Not having timers. Overly apologetic people. Don’t say “sorry” just because you’re stacking your tubs after you are done prepping, or you are grabbing water. Chill out.

AND LASTLY – Have fun. : )