Bour,+Seth

Affiliation: High school: Pine Crest, FL College: Harvard

You are reading this because you want to know what I like to hear--sadly, I no answer for you. I have been debating for 6 years now and I have gone for the Politics DA, the Consult CP, and the K. I have read big stick policy aff's, and critical affirmatives that don't answer disads. As a junior and senior in high school, I went to the TOC. My senior year, I was in the quarterfinals. Last year, as a freshmen in college, I went to the NDT.

Keep in mind that while I will comment on each argument below, there are no rigid predispositions in my judging philosophy. I am open in terms of all argument types so long as you can explain it well. I remember when I used to read that comment, that "the judge is open to all arguments so long as they are explained well", I got pissed off because I didnt see how that comment was helpful--obviously you win if you win. What I am trying to convey is more then just "you win if you win", but that you should not shy away from arguing what you normally argue or feel most comfortable arguing when you are in front of me because you feel that you need to adapt to "what Seth runs" or "what Seth likes". I am here to arbitrate, not get my ego fanned (thought that is always nice).

There are a few general things I should start off with:

1. Cross-ex is a great tool to help you both win debates and increase your speaker points--I like funny, smart, and persuasive. Make them defend why their link evidence from itsgettinghotinhere.org is qualified.

2. You do the debating, not your evidence--I don't get to give Khalizad speaker points. I am judging to hear you debate, and if at the end of the debate I default to my flows not your evidence.

3. Offense/defense paradigm--too often people will just assume that debate defaults to offense/defense. I can be persuaded otherwise fairly easily. Do you need to have non-uniques to win your "link turn" arguments on the politics da's: not necessarily, but it's up to you to explain to me why.

Specific Arguments:

Case: Good case debates are one of the most under-utilized aspects of high school debate. 2ac's ALWAYS struggle after a 1nc that read 4 to 5 minutes of case arguments, and usually tend to drop alot of important things. On top of that, not only are case debates educational, but they actually challenge the affirmative team. Don't let them get away with reading a shady aff. Even good analytical arguments can be persuasive, you just have to make them.

Disads: Heart the disad. Don't love the bad disad with a horribly contrived link. IMPACT CALCULUS is something that will win you debates and increases your speaker points dramatically. Why does magnitude come before probability? Or timeframe before magnitude? Or probability before timeframe? Risk of extinction is not enough.

CPs: I like counterplans. Specific PIC's are fun, but I am looking for evidence that is causative, not correlative. Counterplans that do all of the aff are up for theoretical debate. But that is the burden of the aff. Don't be afraid to read multiple counterplans in front of me (Aff: that doens't mean you should not bother reading conditionality bad). Counterplans that do all of the aff are questionable, but again, if you can defend them both functionally and theoretically then by all means read them. Specific evidence in the context of the aff and the topic that can be used to theoretically justify them has a HUGE impact.

Kritiks: Ive gone for the Reps K. I've gone for the Cap K. I've gone for the Security K. Kritiks are fine, but it is still your burden to explain your argument. Just because I've read the politics DA before doesn't mean you win if you read the politics DA. Why should it be any different on the K?

Framework: For the aff reading framework against the K: What does the other team get to do in your framework? Does the aff get to weigh their impacts against the K? Does the neg get to read K's? What does winning framework mean for a given team? If the aff wins their framework, does the neg get their links? Their alternative? Does the aff just get to weigh their 1ac versus the alt? By the same token, does the neg have to win framework to win the debate? Not necessarily, but explain why. I will rarely, if at all, see framework as a reason to just vote aff. Most often, framework is merely a debate over whose argument needs to be evaluated first.

For the neg reading framework against the critical aff: I think too often the argument gets reduced to a question of theory when in reality it is just an argument over how I should calculate different impacts and arguments. Saying must look at consequences as a policymaker does not equal vote neg on framework. By the same token, if the aff doesnt read a plan, that's probably not the best for debate.

Topicality: I love the topicality. But, remember I don't follow the high school topic, and thus I am starting from the zero-point of knowledge when it comes to the topic. Explain to me what different interpretations mean in terms of the topic. Give me wacky examples of what they would justify. Show me how those different worlds of debate would compare. Smart topicality arguments are preferred to "lots of cards". In that same light, I dont think that an aff has to have a counter-interpretation to win a topicality debate. If you meet, you meet. If you don't meet though, well that's another story.

Theory: I don't fall on either side of this binary. I tend to think conditionality is good, but would still be willing to pull the trigger on conditionality bad. I would say my biggest pet pieve is arbitrary interpretations. Why does the negative get to say they get 3 conditional advocacies? Why does the aff get to say that the neg should only get kritik alternatives that have a clearly defined process? I think resolutional basis is very important. Also, it is up to you to tell me if I decide based on what goes on in the round, or what would be justified under their worldview.