Attaway,+Jeremy

Years Debating/Judging/Coaching: 16 General: I despise judging philosophies. I find that debaters spend too much time parsing them and not enough time constructing good arguments. My advise? Don't overadapt. I want to hear your arguments made well, not the arguments you think I want to hear made poorly. But, here are a few of my proclivities. If you really want useful empirical examples go ask any of the Stratford debaters. What they say may make you want to strike me, but if it doesn't, remember. ..
 * Name: || Jeremy Attaway ||
 * School: || Stratford Academy ||
 * Event: || CX ||
 * Philosophy: ||
 * School Strikes: Stratford
 * Updated April, 2008

Topicality/Procedurals: I vote on them, though not that often. I tend to believe that debate is an educational competition, a game in which the rules are designed not only to make the game possible, but to make it the most educational experience possible. I tend to boil topicality debates down to this question:"What sort of topic does the affirmative justify, and is that on balance good or bad?" Is it too big? Too small? Is there enough literature? Too much? I also think that framers' intent is (no offense to you framers out there) the dumbest standard ever invoked. I almost never pull the trigger on T or other procedurals without in-round abuse. And if you intend to throw out 17 reasons why multiple conditional PIC's are bad then stake the 2AR on it, you better be ready to lose. There's nothing harder to adjudicate or more painful than a blippy theory debate, and my level of pain in the round bears an inverse relationship to your speaker points. A-spec's not a bad argument, again, if and only if you can articulate abuse. I'm less inclined to O-Spec. If the affirmative solvency evidence says Congress should pass [fill in the blank] I'm not sure why I should penalize people for coming out and advocating that. I've never voted for an RVI on T.

Counterplans: You should run one. They exploit the difference between what is ideal and what is topical. While theoretically some PIC's might be abusive, I don't think I've ever voted on that issue in practice. Partially because if you're not carrying answers to Con-Con, Japan and Delay counterplans, you probably deserve to lose. I like a written CP text because it helps me adjudicate the perm debate, and as a correlary I find that many negatives lose CP debates because poor text writing makes them easy to perm, robs them of their solvency, or links them to a disadvantage that could have been avoided. Speaking of which, I also think people don't run nearly enough disad's and turns to counterplans. I'm pretty sure that, because I haven't judged a CP debate without multiple perms in 8 years, dispo is now almost synonymous in practice with condo. I don't really have any objection to either, by the way.

Disads: Also a good idea. I'm in favor of them. There's really nothing I enjoy more than a big card throwdown with lots of shrewd evidence comparisons revolving around a disad with case-specific links. Good times. Ifind that people tend not to do enough work on the internal link debate, especially on politics disadvantages. That's just something to be careful of on the negative and to take advantage of on the affirmative.

Kritiks: I've been accused of being a kritik hack. I'm not sure if that's fair, but I think it's because people have a tendency to answer these arguments poorly, even people with Foucault files the size of a VW Beetle. The reason is because they commit one of the following faux pas: 1)they don't force the negative to defend the status quo, or a CP that doesn't bite the kritik, or a realistic alternative 2) they fail to counterkritik, or 3) they fail to understand the prefiat implications of their own advocacy. Call me crazy, lazy or stupid, but I still think kritiks need an alternative.

Performance: Not a big fan. As noted above, I view debate as a competitive educational game, and I don't think most pure performance positions give me a way to decide who wins. That's what competitions are for, at least inside my tiny cro mag brain. Like kritiks however, I sometimes get forced to vote for it because people don't answer it well. That said, if you don't engage the person doing the singing, dancing or other such stuff on the framework and go merrily along making policy arguments, you're probably going to lose. I would also caution, as a strategic matter, that I find that the teams who argue nothing but "policy framework good" tend to lose in front of me because the teams who are arguing (and I'm wildly generalizing here) "policy debate as you practice it bad" have already heard your arguments and are prepared for them. So please try to be at least a little original/creative, it's really better for all of us. By contrast, if you're performing/engaging in alternative conceptions of debate and you can't explain to me why your actions/speech are necessary to achieve some good, that this tournament is the right forum in which to achieve it, and that traditional policy debate prevents the achievement of said good, you're wasting your time. This may mean I don't "get it", whatever "it" is. If this troubles you, strike me now.

Things I like: 1) a 1NC with 3+ minutes of case turns and takeouts, some of which point out the absurdity of affirmative impact claims and flagrant powertagging; 2) "even if" comparisons from 1AR on; 3) fast, clear debates with lots of argument interactions across the flow; 4) a believable politix story, complete with all the internal links; 5) my flow, because I'm inexoribly chained to it in deciding the round; 6) humor, because we all devote way to much time and energy to this activity for it not to be enjoyable.

Things I don't like: 1) rudeness. If you think you have to be confrontational to make a statement or be a good debater, then you may want to strike me now. Or, you could leave open the possibility that I will judge you and attempt to persuade me. Really the choice is ultimately yours.; 2) brand new impact analysis in the last rebuttals; 3) blippy debates where you ask me at the end of the round "But what about my #23 little 'b' in the 2NC?" then turn red when I respond "Huh?"; 4) kritik debates that devolve into unexplicated postmodern jargon and catchphrases.

Speed's no problem. I'll tell you if you need to be clearer, but only once. I flow tags, cites and as many warrants as I can. I won't get all of them (especially if you're reading really good evidence), and that's where you come in. I will call for cards, usually when people ask me to or when nobody seems to agree on what they say. I suck at calling time because I'm generally more focused on what you're saying than how much time you have left to say it. I assume that given the choice, that's what you'd prefer I do. The upshot however is that you'll want to keep your own. Don't steal prep. Play well with others, and everything will be OK. ||