Moore,+Jessica

** Affiliation **: Emory University ** Background **: 4 years of policy debate at Emory. Current part-time coach.

__General thoughts__: I will do my best to not impose my belief system on your debate. In order to avoid having me do this, you should err toward comparing arguments, rather than leaving me to sort things out for myself. There really is only a risk that I will sort things out in a way you don't agree with.

Every argument needs an impact. People sometimes forget that. For example, "our evidence post-dates" is an interesting FYI, but will not help you without a reason that more recent evidence should be preferred.

Debate creates a strategic incentive to take extreme positions. That's not a bad thing. Unfortunately, it often takes the form of statements like, "We're winning 100% risk of the DA; they're winning 0% risk of the aff," "The counterplan solves 100% of the aff," "Nothing matters, except X." While sometimes these statements are true, those instances are few and far between. You would be doing yourself a great service by thinking about what arguments you are likely to lose, then assuming you lose those arguments, and only then beginning to explain a framework under which you would win the debate.

Be nice. Seriously. It will help your speaks. It will make me happy. And, most importantly, being a dick gets you no where in the real world - there is no reason it should get you further in debate.

__DAs, Impact Turns, and Case debate__: Yes, please. Impact turn debates get messy quickly - please remember this during the 2NR/2AR.

__Counterplans__: Also, good. My general thoughts (which should not substantively impact your strategy) are that: 1) Counterplans that can result in the aff are probably not competitive. 2) International actor counterplans are generally okay. 3) Object fiat and multiactor fiat are never okay.

__Kritiks__: After judging a few of these debates, I've figured out that the reason lots of critical debates make me unhappy is not that I prefer "policy" arguments so much as that I hate hearing terrible K debates. Learning to debate critiques from John Turner has sort of made me a K-snob. (For example, when you're reading cards from authors who have fundamentally different understandings of the world, chances are good that I've noticed and that I'm doing all I can to not throw a pen at you.) Good critique debates, however, make me very happy. There are few things that I'd prefer to listen to than an well-executed criticism that is responsive to/interacts with the aff. More specifically, these debates are most compelling when there's a clear link to the substance (actions or representations) of the aff, rather than things that seem more link-of-ommission/commission-y (i.e.: You don't contest X. X is bad). "Judge choice" is an argument that I generally find silly. You should be responsible for the underlying assumptions that your authors make insofar as they inform the picture of reality the aff paints. (I do, however, think that science, empiricism, and pragmatism are all decent/defensible ways of knowing and dealing with the world.)

__K Affs__: The aff should have a plan. That plan should be topical. The aff should defend the literal implementation of that plan. (Obviously, all of these things are debatable, but my general predisposition is toward them.) Anything after that is fair game. Have fun with it, but if it seems that your aff has magic-ed itself out of all your opponents substantive challenges, I'm going to be more willing to vote on T/"framework." (In debating K affs, T is almost always preferable to "framework.")

__Topicality__: Caselists and why they are preferable are crucial. Predictable limits and good ground division are the impacts that (in my humble opinion) matter most. Having a potentially great debate that you can't prepare for and having an innane discussion that you know everything about seem like equally bad ways to spend your time.

__Theory__: Meh. If you have to do it, do it. If you're not backed into a corner, go for substance. Blippy and block-dependent theory debates make me unhappy. Your speaker points will suffer, as a result.

__"Performance"/"Project"__: I have yet to have the opportunity to judge any of these debates, so I have relatively little to offer in the way of telling you how I evaluate them. Contrary to popular belief, I've read a fair amount of this literature. I think I'm beginning to understand (possibly an extreme characerization) some of it, but I will freely admit that my understanding is lacking. I understand debate to function in certain ways (See section on K affs), however, I recognize that some of those understandings may be problematic. You should be sure to take time to explain why they are problematic, rather than asserting that because certain things about how debate works are flawed, that all things must be flawed.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small; vertical-align: baseline;">__Misc Thoughts__: <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small; vertical-align: baseline;">"This is new" is not a complete argument. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small; vertical-align: baseline;">If you win that fairness is bad, you will likely lose. The reason for this should be obvious. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small; vertical-align: baseline;">I don't think this should really need to be said, but I prefer smart arguments. Things I consider stupid include: Ashtar and all relatives thereof, T- "and/or" means "and", most things that end in "SPEC." (That's not an exhaustive list; if you manage to read something that belongs here that I've left off...well...let's just say you'll figure it out fast.) <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small; vertical-align: baseline;">Good Evidence>Good Analytic>Bad Evidence>Bad Analytic and 1 excellent card>5 mediocre cards. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small; vertical-align: baseline;">Evidence written by debaters or cut from interviews conducted by debaters about debate is probably terrible for the community. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small; vertical-align: baseline;">__Things I like__: <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small; vertical-align: baseline;">-people who understand paperless/make it run efficiently <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small; vertical-align: baseline;">-the line-by-line <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small; vertical-align: baseline;">-impact turns <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small; vertical-align: baseline;">-a solid understanding of statistics, economics, or math <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small; vertical-align: baseline;">-jokes about Ed Lee, Matthew Pesce or Kirk Gibson (I will also accept jokes about John Turner being the Novice Judge of the Year)

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small; vertical-align: baseline;">**Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm:**

As should be apparent by now, I do a lot less thinking about LD than I do about policy. This should inform how you explain your arguments, as I am not likely to put two and two together for (four) you. That said, I'd like to think that I'm a pretty competent flow, and that most of what I've said above applies here, as well. Articulate a coherent framework with which I should adjudicate the debate, compare arguments, read the arguments that you are most comfortable with. Regarding speed, I have never met an LD-debater who I thought was unflowably-fast. I have met many who I thought were unflowably unclear. Take that for what you will. As a word of warning, I think speaker points in LD are inflated, BADLY. Unless you are the best debater I'm likely to see all tournament, you will probably not get a 30.