Anderson,+John

Theory: I default competing interp, generally am not persuaded by reasonability claims if work is being done on the top but I definitely boast a healthy skepticism when it comes to unconventional standards i.e. specification arguments. I like a really well-done line by line and find far too often instances of debaters extending their own standards and not answering the opponent’s. Weigh impacts. In policy: very unlikely that I will grant any RVIs on theory read in the 1NC. In LD: much lower threshold. I am a huge believer that the LD 1AR is the hardest speech across all of the debates and I buy there is a dangerous time skew for answering off-case positions and potentially undercovering some of them, so I lean towards granting the aff RVIs on theory when there are multiple off and case arguments. That being said, I don’t do the work for you here: you don’t automatically get an RVI, but if you spend the time and give reasons why I grant you an RVI, respond to reasons I don’t grant it to you, *AND* you win the interp (please do not go for RVI after dropping theory proper) you can safely assume I’m buying the argument. I would rather you undercover other issues if you’re committing to RVI than give a half-hearted try at theory and undercover it *AND* everything else. For negs looking to avoid losing on an RVI in front of me: don’t read theory you don’t intend to win.

Disads: I appreciate good use of mechanical skills on each level of the argument: I want uniqueness analysis, I want link analysis, etc. More than anything, seeing as the fundamental question on most disads is their probability, I want you to walk me through the impact scenario from plan passage to impact. You usually don’t prove probability with a single internal link card. Dispute internal warrants in evidence and extend your own along with being responsive on the larger level.

Kritiks: I tend to grant risks of a link unless there is a clear separation of the advocacy from the criticism. I prefer offensive reasons to reject alternatives and assume that not solving the offense is better than contributing to it but I hope there are bigger issues on the flow than that. I am immediately skeptical of alts that cede the political so you’ll need to walk me through both solvency and mitigating the turn.

Cap: I like specific links, or at least nuanced explanations if your cap K is against a demonstrably socialist policy. If you’re reading cap good, respond to the impacts / cap bad warrants. I would prefer you find better places to respond, but I definitely don’t want to hear you say cap is good because of innovation, etc. if it means you ignore suffering impacts and don’t do any weighing. I still want good impact analysis from the team critiquing.

Counterplans: I use sufficiency framing unless solvency deficits are leveraged such that I don’t. I really like theory debates on CP so don’t worry about having to kick it because it’s not being evaluated.

Performances: I want to know what the performance does to affect my decision. When answering performances, be responsive on as many levels as you can. Obviously I don’t want you to take any problematic positions, but what I also don’t want to see is you extending post-fiat voters and arguments without legitimizing them first or otherwise doing work on f/w. I don’t like rounds where one debater/team is reading a performance and the other side panics because they aren’t familiar, but if that’s the case please justify why your vision of debate is best or indict the opponent’s. I give leeway in those instances and would rather vote for a team unversed in the style that makes an effort to answer than for a lazy performer who won’t do the minimum work to win the ballot. However, I will still vote on the performance if read and defended well.

Framework: By default, I believe - Knowledge production > role-playing - Systemic impacts > calculative impacts - Utilitarianism > deontology - Life > quality of life Obviously I want you to tell me how to weigh if you’re going for a different strategy, and on every level tell me what is most important and how it affects my decision. In LD: I absolutely hate when debaters do a ton of work on their framework and don’t extend contention level offense. Winning framework is not a voter in & of itself and it won’t win you my ballot, but it *will* allow you to justify why you win given your offense on case / elsewhere. Affs reading framework are welcome to kick out of theirs in favor of opposing framework. I am skeptical of negs doing this in the NR if it has become a relevant issue in the round.

Policy on-case: I don’t want the 1AR extending case cards the 2AC doesn’t talk about. I don’t vote on your defense unless it is *very* explicitly terminal. 99% of the time I don’t care about your inherency and probably would only ever care if your plan was not a shift from the status quo and a theory block was read about why the aff can’t defend the squo. Don’t read harms defense / squo solves and call it inherency or I’ll dock you speaks for not understanding the difference. I’m very skeptical of new case offense in the block, and would always prefer you get your foot in the door on case in the 1NC, because I don’t have a good metric to explain how much leeway I give a 1AR based on new arguments in the block but it’s just not something I’m willing to err neg on.

Speaker points: Speed is fine and I’ll indicate otherwise when necessary. I am super nitpicky about hearing authors and taglines. A problem I hate and wish to avoid is you reading a card and then beginning a new one with no clear indication of motion so I flow the tagline as the evidence you were just reading. I dock speaker points for this lack of clarity, so use “and”, subpoints, or other clear signifiers to keep my flow clean. I also hate extending cards I can’t easily find on my flow due to not hearing the author when it was originally read, so beware. Debate is first and foremost a technical event and I will always evaluate substance over delivery, and within delivery I value technical skills over general persuasiveness / “pretty talk”. I start each competitor out at 27.5 points, which I identify as average, and adjust accordingly. Strategic decisions, responsiveness, clarity, and demonstrable understanding of issues get you more points. Disorganization, shoddy analysis or rambling on unimportant issues, and fluency breaks will move you down. I need pen time on theory and arguments that you spend little time on! Please give me a second to switch flows when you’re moving around. I absolutely hate passive aggression, snideness, and disrespectful behavior, and will not hesitate to dock your speaks to the minimum even in the face of flawless delivery and skill for your interactions with your opponents. Considering this is a competitive event I obviously understand situations can get heated, and I absolutely love impassioned performances, but I will not tolerate disrespect or continual bad attitude. Don’t make a statement while CXing an opponent that counters their previous answer and then transition into your next question with “…but that’s fine.” I don’t reward pettiness and clearly I feel *really* strongly about this so if you’re in prelims acting like a jerk please don’t be surprised when you lose speaks.

Misogyny/homophobia/transphobia/racism/Islamophobia/etc.: I believe it’s reasonable to use the ballot to react to real damage done in debate by competitors seeking to make the event less accessible to others. I will not hesitate to vote down anyone being blatantly offensive and expect competitors to have a base understanding of how such behavior can hurt others in the debate space. I understand that not everyone (particularly young people) has been exposed to different groups and ideas and I don’t want to vote down each person/team that isn’t 100% politically correct, but be smart: I don’t want to vote for violent language against marginalized groups.