Barrett,+Cameron

Judging Paradigm: Cameron Barrett: Tab Judge at heart.

Theory: I’m ok with theory arguments, that being said, I have a high tolerance. It’s hard to prove you lose ground on the neg/aff when/if you coincide a theory argument with five-six minutes of On/Off case arguments. Theory also kind-of forces me as a judge to insert my opinion into the debate round, which I will never do with anything else. It forces me to evaluate “Do I really think [insert generic theory here] is abusive?” More than not my answer will be no, but if you argue it effectively and the other side drops key points, or doesn't extend standards/voters I will certainly vote on it.

Topicality: The topicality debate is crucial for debate as a whole, for, while I do like squirrely affs, it does help to check those. Now, only run Topicality if there is a clear violation. One time a team I went against used “NGO’s” (Non-Government Organizations) as their funding, now of course that is a clear topicality violation, but if you are going to run Top., just hoping the aff drops it, with a plan to kick T if they don’t, then don’t expect me to vote on it, unless the aff actually does drop it, and if you do want to go for it, the entirety of the 2NR should all be topicality if you go for it, if you run anything alongside topicality in the 2NR, and the aff brings that up, you will likely lose the round, but not necessarily.

On-Case: I will vote on a defensive case argument, but I have a VERY hard time doing so, but I feel like the “try or die” kick out of all solvency arguments is just a way of the aff saying “I can’t really effectively respond to this argument.” However, always try and accompany defensive solvency arguments with case-turns and off-case arguments. I align with the stock issues judges in that, you need to have every part of “THISS” in your case. Therefore, I will vote on “not inherent” if there is literally no inherency in your case or if the affs exact plan text is being done, but generic stuff like “funding now” or “research now” won’t work with me.

Kritiks: Love’em. Run a kritik if you want, run 10 of them. I feel like kritikal debate allows debater to go more in-depth in a debate round rather than just “nuclear war and extinction.” That being said, I will not just vote on a kritik because the neg ran one. The framework and the Role of the Ballot debate/alt solvency on K is key to me evaluating which side wins on a K.

Counter Plans: I enjoy these as well. However, they must be well developed. I will evaluate consult CPs, and the like, however, a CP needs to be more than one card. If you have a CP saying “Australia should do it because…” That isn’t enough. You need to have at least three or four extra solvency cards along with that in order for me to choose your policy option over the aff, but if the aff doesn’t make that argument, then I will flow/vote on a one-card CP.

DAs: Don’t mind them. The more specific the better, if they are generic (i.e. China DA, BioD DA) the more specific the link the better.

Impact Calculus: Should be at the end of every rebuttal. The impact which kills the most people does not necessarily win just based on that. If your impact is dehumanization, value to life, or 5 million people starving, explain why I should prefer that impact over extinction. Probability, Timeframe, Magnitude are all three equally important. If you lose on magnitude, but win on Prob./Time then I’ll flow you over the other team. Impact Calc. is where debates are won and lost. Cards are always preferred over analytics in my mind, but don’t read 10 cards with no analysis and expect me to evaluate that. Quality flows over quantity, that being said, if you don’t have evidence, it doesn’t matter how strong the analysis is.

Speaks: I will never give speaks lower than 25 unless someone it incredibly bad, incredibly bad. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I will almost never give 30 speaker points. If you get a ballot from me and it has 30 speaks on it, that means you were pretty much one the top 1% of debaters I have ever seen.

Rudeness: I will not vote a team down for being rude, I draw that line at speaker points. If you are incredibly rude, you will have incredibly low speaker points.

Spreading: Don’t care, go as fast as you want. Just make it clear when you go from one card to another with a loud/abrupt “AND”

Bias: I will NEVER say “I don’t buy that argument.” I will evaluate any argument made in the round. If you want to run racism good, go ahead. I will always flow a side with evidence over the side without it. “That’s an insane argument” will never work on me. Why is Nuclear War necessarily bad? Go for those arguments if you want. Feel free to go for whatever you deem fit in a round.