Magariel,+David

Blue Valley North
 * David Magariel **


 * Generally ** ­ I have been in and out of the debate community the last few years. Most of that time I have been practicing law but have coached at the college level in the last few years to a small degree. This summer I did teach at the KU Debate Camp so I am fairly familiar with this topic. I currently coach part time for a local high school in Kansas and this is my second year in a row at the Glenbrooks. Other than that I usually only judge at the high school level in Kansas. This probably doesn't mean too much except that you have never heard of me. It also means my ear is not as trained as it once was and so at the very highest level I have found myself not keeping up as well as I used to. I doubt this will effect 95% of debates but some high level super quick high school debates would be smart to slow down in key places and make sure I am getting what you are doing - or else it is worthless. You should do that anyway I guess. This doesn't mean I am opposed to fast debate - just that my ear and pen aren't quick as fresh as they once were.

I try hard to decide the round based on the arguments and analysis debaters make in the round. I will read evidence that I think is relevant to the decision to help me resolve things that are in conflict during the debate. However I don't read evidence to look for warrants you have never made. I have no definite presumptions but here are some things I tend to favor:


 * Counterplans ** ­ I generally think PICs are ok but also could be persuaded to vote affirmative that they are illegit. The State CP or Private Industry/PPP CP with a politics net benefit is fine and often a good strategy. Dispositionality could be easier to defend on the negative in front of me than conditionality. I know I am old school on this one. Both are defensible either way. Theory questions should not whine about time loss but should focus on how their view of the debate world has meant you lost some SPECIFIC strategic benefit that is important. Failure to generate good, explained offensive warrants for whatever theory you are defending/arguing against is asking to lose. Affirmatives should attempt to win that the solvency deficit or disad to the counterplan outweighs the risk of the net benefit ­ negatives should do the opposite.


 * Topicality ** ­ If you have something decent go for it. My default view is probably competing interpretations but of course will listen to whatever you have to say. I am willing to vote on topicality and have this year. This years topic has actually produced some decent T debates.


 * Disads ** ­ Important part of the negative arsenal. I do not think that if you win the uniqueness you automatically win a risk of your disad. If the affirmative wins a larger risk of their link turn and you hose them on the uniqueness you still aren't in a good place (ie I think you could win zero percent of a link). With big impacts on this topic you should evaluate risk of disad impact v. risk of case advantage – relative risks X impact calculus, etc.


 * Critiques ** ­ Honestly not my favorite form of argument, especially at the high school level. I find most debaters have a very simplistic understanding of the argument which produces some bad debates. If this is your main strategy and I am your judge you can still win in front of me. Good explanations of the link and impact/alternative level are very important. Framework discussions are helpful. For the affirmative a permutation is often important.

__ Things to do to win in front of me __ ­ Explain how you win in the 2NR/2AR. I would like to hear some impact calculus, even if we lose X, Z outweighs, kinda overviews. If an argument is something that needs to be explained please do so. I really hate debates where the negative or the affirmative has something tricky but they just read a slew of cards and spend no time explaining how it turns the case, or the disad, or whatever implication it has in the debate. Please read one less card and explain a bit how this argument functions in the. Don’t not run something tricky – I want to hear it. I like it when people are confident about their arguments and can show some personality/sarcasm in the debate. Being a jerk will get you nowhere ­ being a funny confident person will get you good speaker points. Good luck!