Smith,+Joshua


 * My name is Josh Smith, and I am a former college debater (Loyola University Chicago, 2004-2007). I'm currently a lawyer and assistant coach for Nevada Union High School. I used to coach for Walter Payton High School in Chicago and Lake City High School in Coeur d'Alene.**

__//**My judging philosphy:**//__


 * Affirmative Issues:**

//Topicality/Aff Selection://

My default position is that topicality is a voting issue. If the Neg wins their voters, and the Aff doesn't win a "we meet", then I default to competing interpretations. I will consider kritiks of topicality. My default is that it is a reason to reject the argument, not the team, but I have been convinced otherwise in the past. I'm perfectly fine with Affirmatives that use multiple styles/formats of evidence, such as music, poetry, etc., so long as the Aff provides a decision calculus and engages with the substance of the Neg's arguments.

//Case Attacks://

My thinking on this has changed over the past few years, but I believe that case attacks, especially if mis-handled by the Aff, can be devastating. It may be few and far between where a case attack wins the round, but I'm not averse to signing my ballot on one of them.

//Framework/Theory://

My default is to reject the argument, not the team. A "clash of civilizations" isn't really enough, neither is a deontology vs. utilitarianism debate, unless there is an interaction between the two arguments, and reasons to prefer one or the other.


 * Negative Issues:**

//Kritiks://

I'm fine with them. I'm more familar with certain authors (Foucault, Butler) and less familiar with otheres (Deleuze & Guattari, Lacan). I think that the K is often overused, and that generic K's are run to avoid actually doing any specific research against the Aff. The more specific your links, the more likely you are to survive generic defense from the Aff.

//Counterplans://

This is probably my greatest area of change over the past couple of years. Before, I used to find that CP's weren't always the most strategic option, especially compared with the K literature. However, I've flipped those around. Now, I think that specific counterplans (especially those that use an Aff author as their solvency advocate) or advantage counterplans are incredibly strategic. I'm not quite as excited for generic CP's (like Consult, Delay, XO) unless there is literature specific to the Aff. Combined with a strong net benefit or a solvency argument, this is often the way to win my ballot on the Neg side.

//Disads://

As you might expect from my running theme, my primary rule for disads is the more specific, the better. This applies to not just the scenario, but also to the specificity of the link.


 * Meta-Issues:**

//"Unacceptable" Arguments:// I realize that this is a grey area, full of my own subjectivity and biases. However, I feel obligated to put this out there. I will not vote for an argument that explicity supports or advocates racism, sexism or homophobia. Generally, these arguments don't have much in the way of honest, supportive evidence, but I want to be up-front and honest. I will, however, consider arguments such as Schmitt, Malthus, etc. I really don't like Ashtar, Timecube, etc. //Speed://

Most of my work involves cutting cards, and I don't tend to judge a lot. Keeping that in mind, you might need to slow down a little bit (especially for theory blocks or anything with independent voting significance).

//Disclosure://

During the round, I will follow the tournament's instructions regarding disclosure. After the round is over, I'm happy to talk to debaters about ways to improve their performance. I find that this is often difficult to do without disclosing the my decision. I do not, however, disclose speaker points (if for no other reason that I usually write it down and then forget it).

//Speaker Points/Cheating://

I will follow the tournament's instructions regarding speaker point allocation, as well as penalties for clipping/cheating. If the tournament doesn't provide any instructions, I generally operate on a 25.0-30.0 bell curve, based my assumptions about the quality of the other debaters in the tournament and my own experiences.

//__**I'll be glad to answer any specific questions from the debaters immediately prior to the debate.**__//