Baller,+Cameron

I debated for 2 years at Seaholm High School and qualified to the Tournament of Champions my senior year. I began debating for the University of Kentucky in 2015.
 * __ Background __**

I have mostly read USFG policy actions on the aff, but as a 2N I have gone for everything from Politics and Framework to Coloniality and Derrida. I like flexibility, but I also appreciate people who can debate a particular argument very well.

I’m relatively new to judging, and thus I am still trying to work through my opinions on particular things. If you have any questions, let me know. My email is crballer1 (at) gmail (dot) com.

Do what you know. I’ll vote on anything with a logical __claim, warrant AND impact__. Write my ballot for me in the final rebuttals and explain arguments rather than relying on tag line extensions.
 * __ The Short Version: __**

An argument is a claim, a warrant and an impact. If it doesn’t have one of those three, it probably won’t make it into my decision.
 * __ The Long Version: __**
 * __ General Stuff: __**

Tech over truth, but the last point always applies. If you go for severance perms are a voting issue, I probably won’t vote on it because there is not a logical __warrant__ (that I have heard, at least) as to why rejecting the perm is insufficient.

Clarity over speed. You are only as fast as the number of arguments conveyed to me per minute, it doesn’t matter how many words you say if I don’t write them down. I will say “clear” a few times until I get annoyed, then you’re on your own. That being said, I can deal with any level of speed, as long as it is clear. A slow, unclear person is always harder to understand than a fast, clear person.

__ Topicality __ - The limits debate is very important for me. A list and explanation of the topical affs under each interpretation is necessary from both sides for a well-developed T debate. A topical version of the aff is usually helpful, but not necessary. I default to competing interpretations, but can be convinced that a reasonably good interpretation should be good enough. However, I think the most fundamental job of the negative here is to prove the counter-interpretation is unreasonable, and thus it is often unnecessary to win competing interpretations to win the topicality debate.
 * __ Specifics: __**

__ DAs __ - Impact framing, please do it. If you are going to go for a DA without a counterplan, there should be some pretty sweet case arguments. In most cases, uniqueness controls the direction of the link makes a lot more sense to me, but in certain situations, I could be convinced otherwise.

__ CP Theory __ - They should __probably__ be both functionally and textually competitive AND should not generate competition off of certainty or immediacy. Convince me otherwise if the Consult China CP is your go-to. The more specific the solvency advocate, the more likely I am to err neg on theory. This screams judge intervention, but it tends to be one of the best standards for measuring predictability. If you are going to go for theory in the 2AR, spend a lot of time on it. A messy and blippy theory debate will usually favor the negative. All CP theory arguments (save Condo) are reject the argument, not the team. If I think the status quo is better than the affirmative and the CP, I will only “judge-kick” the CP if told to do so by the negative (without a convincing affirmative response). The illogical nature of this standard pains me, but I think it is necessary to both incentivize technical debating and punish poor strategic choice. Conditionality is good, to a point. 1 or 2 is probably fine, 3 is pushing it, and 4+ is ridiculous.

__ Ks __ - These debates are either the best, or the worst, please make them the best. I have read a little on many authors, but a lot on few. Don’t use buzz words, explain arguments. I am totally fine for most Ks as long as they are explained. If you are going to go for high theory arguments, they require an extra level of explanation at the thesis level, so I understand the basic premise of your argument. High theory debates are probably the ones where I feel the least comfortable because teams tend to rely on buzz words more than in other Kritik debates. I will not “hack out” for your Baudrillard K, but I will vote for it if it is contextualized well. The link debate should always be specific and each link should be impacted out. There doesn’t need to be an alternative, given you have won sufficient turns case analysis or other framing arguments that make an alternative unnecessary. If there is an alternative, it should probably have a text. For the aff: Use your affirmative as offense against the K, attack the alternative, know your 2AR strategy before the debate even begins. I am a fan of pragmatism+ permutation, which is as much a suggestion for the aff as the neg: Make sure your link arguments are more specific than “they used the state.”

__ Non-“USFG Policy” Affs __ (Sometimes called “Non-traditional” affirmatives)- Do your thing, know your stuff. Have a method and defend that method (which can include defending the lack of a method). Also, defend everything else you do. You don’t have to have a plan text, or even an advocacy statement, but if that is your choice, you have to defend your entire speech act. I am a strong supporter of debating the topic, but not necessarily the resolution. That means a couple things. First, please be, at the very least, vaguely in the direction of the topic. Second, I am open to the idea that a discussion about the topic is preferable to a topical discussion. For the neg: I like specific strategies. That being said, it is difficult to find specific strategies for every aff. If you like to read FW, I am more susceptible to FW as a counter-method defending law and pragmatism. I did not read FW as a procedural very much in high school, but that does not mean I won’t vote on it. Structural Ks (Cap, Anti-blackness, Anthro etc.) are good routes too. Make sure you question the affirmative’s ability to get a permutation in these debates. I am not fully convinced in either direction and think that there is a good debate to be had. The root cause and turns case debates usually decide these rounds for me.

__ Case __ - It’s my most favorite thing to debate. Good case debate by the negative can be devastating. Shallow case debate by the negative begs for an aff ballot. 2As: I see you dropping args like it’s hot in the 2AC, don’t do that. Neg: Don’t let them do that. If an argument is not answered in the 2AC, point that out. I won’t let the 1AR have new arguments. Try to focus the case debate on internal links over impacts, that’s where the aff is usually the weakest.

I will try to only ask for cards when the quality or content of a particular piece of evidence is questioned. I may call for cards if told to do so, but I would prefer if you just explained the piece of evidence to me in the debate. How you explain a piece of evidence frames how I will read that piece of evidence. Don’t force me to do work for you.
 * __ Other stuff: __**

CX starts when the __speech ends__. Prep ends when the flash drive __leaves the computer__, or when the email is __sent__. Tech issues are case-by-case, but I probably won’t take it out of your prep. If you steal prep I will dock your points.

Don’t be offensive. If you are either __deliberately__ or __continually__ offensive, you will get very low speaks. This standard leaves room for ignorance and education in terms of offensive behavior, but punishes malice and/or a lack of respect.

Don’t clip cards. Don’t accuse someone of clipping without evidence in the form of audio or video. If an accusation is made, the round ends. I will consult with tab and evaluate the evidence. For a team found, beyond reasonable doubt, to be clipping, the punishment is either 0 speaks and a loss, or the particular tournament’s own procedure. False accusations are either your average speaks and a loss, if the tournament will do that, or 28s and a loss.

Last Updated: May 2015