Smith,+Darrell

Darrell Smith West Des Moines Iowa

Updated Nov. 2016 for Millard Tournament

Myself: I am a third year debater with plenty of experience in policy and also a tad of experience in the K. I have been in 3 tournaments and debate camp during this topic.

Shortest Version: Just ask me questions and I will answer... But if you want more details read the paradigm :-).

Short Version: I will evaluate almost any argument that has a warrant, impact, voter etc. I will weight impacts as I am told during the debate, and evaluate all args based on the round. However, I will not evaluate an arg that is incomplete or that lacks any type of evidence, reasoning, impact, etc. In terms of speaking, I am fine with spreading/speed, but BE CLEAR. If you are not clear I will say clear once per speech, and no more. If you are not clear I will not hear what you say and will not evaluate it. I also love direct clash over things such as impacts, theory, and order of analysis. Finally, make sure everything you want to to vote on is summarized and extended in the 2AR/2NR. I will listed in the other speeches, BUT IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT ALL YOUR IMPORTANT ARGUMENTS THAT YOU WANT ME TO VOTE ON GET THERE. If a winning argument is thoroughly explained in the 1AR but not the 2AR, it will make me sad :-(. Please make sure to extend your most important points to the final rebuttal.

Long version: I generally default to utilitarianism, and will vote on it when not given a reason not to. Additionally, any other framework must be or have an alternative to the aff, not just a rejection. Say, for example, that the aff reads a standard util aff. The neg reads a lot of reasons as to why trying to save the most lives is not the best form of government, but fails to give an alternative. Because there is no alternative framework I will have to fall back on util, even if it is false.

General information: 1) I prefer direct clash. Running DAs instead of responding to case might be something that some can do, but direct clash, or even weighing the DA vs the AFF is an important step. I want direct analysis as to why your case is better than your opponents. If you have good reasoning as to why your case is specifically better than your opponents then I will boost your speaks. 2) Be clear, if you are unsure if you are clear or not err on the side of clarity. I do not want to listen to a murmur or a undecipherable mess. Clarity is imperative 3) I do not take prep for flashing/emailing, etc. if you are flashing, etc, please also give me a copy of your files. Otherwise, keep flash time to a minimum 4) I do allow tag teaming. You may ask a question or answer a few even if it is not your CX, but don’t monopolize someone else’s CX or it will be reflected in your speaks 5) I don’t study US-China relations in my free time. If you are running a space aff, BIT, Taiwan, explain it. Just because I know what these are doesn’t mean that I’m going to assume you do. Explain everything you read. Basically, never assume I know what you are talking about. Explain WHY your case is important, what it means, what its impacts are, etc. 6) I expect you to be polite. If you are rude, overly aggressive, that is not good speaking, and I will detract points. 7) I am very much a 2NR/2AR hack. I will still listen to the other speeches, but I will only evaluate stuff that is in the 2nd rebuttal. If anything is dropped, I won't evaluate it. During the 2nd rebuttal I expect a good overview of your case and why it is better than the other team's, along with the reasoning why your case is better. 8) Blocks are fine and a great way to be prepared, so kudos to you. However, please also be aware of what you are reading and how it affects the round. 9) I try to be as fair as possible. If you have any questions that you need specified or simply my personal preferences as to arguments, feel free to ask :-). 10) I will try my best to evaluate all things equally, but know that I despise generic politics and elections disads, and that subpar topicality args get on my nerves. I will still try to evaluate it fairly, but given a close debate without an obvious winner I will tend to default to the aff.

Specific arguments:

Topicality: Personally I believe this is an overused argument. Too often I will hear teams read this against obviously topical plans and end up only reading it in the block to screw with the 1AR. I will always vote for T above the rest of the flow unless told otherwise. If a "fairness/theory comes first" arg is read, I will look to it. I view topicality as a test of whether the aff is fair, predictable, etc. Whatever standards you read, make sure your interp matches them. If you are running a predictability standard, then I expect your interpretation to also be predictable and reasonable. If you want to run a obscure T, feel free but have matching and appropriate standards and interps. Finally, if you are running a stupid T shell that's only purpose is to waste time, then it will reflect in your speaks. I expect a T shell to be well written with a clear interpretation, violation, standards, and voters.

Just a few things 1) I default to reason ability. If you think reasonability is bad, argue it and I will listen. If an aff is reasonably topical and the neg says "reasonability bad", just say "neg over-limits" or something like that. When running a T arg, I expect each argument to be well made with a clear winner. Basically, make me understand, without a doubt, why you won T. 2) If your aff meets a T interpretation, point it out and I will listen. There is not failed T shell more than the one which has no violation 3) If an aff is clearly untopical, I expect the aff to be able to defend it. If the aff is obviously topical, I expect them to be able to say why they are in response to T 4) Pretty much, I will try to be as unbiased as I can when evaluating T, but it is one of my lesser enjoyed arguments and if it is poorly made I will detract speaks. 5) However, if a good T is made with clear points then you can expect your speaks to go up.

Inherency:

This is probably the most simple argument to evaluate. Inherency comes first before advantages, disadvantages, etc. If an aff is inherent, then they have no uniqueness and I can't vote for them based on advantages. If a aff is not inherent, then they have uniqueness. Inherency is one of those few arguments where I believe that evidence can actually be more important than good argumentation. If a team has sound evidence for why an aff is inherent and the aff can't invalidate it, then I will weigh it. 3 points

1) If a plan is clearly already being done in its entirety then it is inherent. In this case the aff loses their plan uniqueness and impacts 2) If a plan is not being done, but something similar is being done, the aff is not inherent, but I might still buy into some "this disproves the affs claims". 3) If a plan is meant to increase already existing engagement, I expect the neg to argue why the increased engagement is useless, etc, not the squo.

Solvency

I weigh and view this very similar to inherency. If you can prove your aff will actually work I give you our impacts. If the neg can invalidate your solvency I won't evaluate your impacts. If solvency is debated and there is a 50% chance that your aff won't solve or that the aff will only solve 50% of the impacts, I will weigh your case less than if it was a 70% chance to solve.

1) I view solvency on a sliding scale. For me to vote on presumption and presumption only requires a complete invalidation of the aff. Basically, you would need the aff to drop any neg solvency attacks or for the neg to do a really good job debating solvency 2) If I am given additional reasons to vote on presumption (say good policy making, etc) then I will listen 3) If there is a 1% chance the aff will solve and there is no reason not to at least try the aff I will vote for the affirmative team

DAs:

DAs are a good, versatile argument. If you have a good argument with good impacts, go for it. AFF, if you want to try to argue impacts with a DA, feel free, I will weigh the impact defense when weighing the aff vs the DA. However, I personally think the most important, and what should be the most well thought out part of a DA should be the link. If you have a vague link, be ready to defend/explain it!!! If your link is BS/vague, or just badly presented then I will be forced to drop the DA from my evaluation of the round. I hold the link to a DA to a very high standard. In my opinion, DAs often don't have good links. If you are running a politics/elections DA and you don't have a clearly explained link or story as to why the aff would trigger the impacts then I can't vote on the DA. A few points:

1) I love link debate. AFF, if the neg reads a DA, go the link. Find any reason why the link is bad and completely invalidate the DA. Neg, defend your link. Without it your DA is simply a few cards with no context to the round. 2) Make sure to weigh the impacts of the DA against that of the AFF. This is very important and is essential to winning the round. 3) If you run a politics/elections DA and political capital is your link, you better have a decent explanation as to why the plan would actually reflect poorly. If your only arg is "anything done no matter what it is will reflect poorly on republicans" then I will not be impressed. Please explain your link debate.

CPs:

CPs... these can be great or horrible arguments, based on their presentation. I will vote on a counter plan provided that any theory is out of the way. In my mind a great counterplan is one with a clear, laid out plan and that has unique advantages. If a counterplan simply says "the prez should do the plan instead of congress" and has no benefit I won't vote on it. Also, if you want to run a education benefit to the CP, please do. Finally, I love it when a team can effectively explain why a different actor can do a plan better from a simple effectiveness/solvency standpoint. Few points:

1) There a great number of things that will determine if I even evaluate a CP. To name a few, I will always evaluate fairness, education, CP theory, conditionality, etc before the CP. After that I will evaluate the solvency and advantages of the CP and the AFF, and then choose the better choice. 2) I love weighing the counterplan against the plan. If this is done effectively/clearly, I will award bonus speaks.

Ks:

Ks are one of my lesser liked arguments, simply because of their great diversity and the amount of people who read Ks despite not understanding them. I will evaluate a K if it is effectively explained and made sense of. If a team can sum it up in their own words and make is especially clear (or even obvious) what the K is then I will boost your speaks. Also, as one final point, from a K perspective I am somewhat staid. For example, if you try to tell me that human extinction is good because it reduces suffering, I will not be particularly happy with it. If it is argued correctly and the other team doesn't have a good defense, then I will vote for it, but if it is a close tie, then I will choose life. (Personally, I love life, and might be somewhat biased to Ks that represent that (think security)).

Theory:

I LOVE THEORY. I CANNOT SAY THIS ENOUGH. However, most theory blocks are a collection of maybe 10 sentence points. That's fine for a constructive, but I want more during rebuttals. If you focus on a few points a thoroughly explain them, it will make me happy and I will boost your speaks.

1) Please, explain your theory and why it is a voting issue. If this is dropped it will make me sad :-(. But, if you do a good job, then I will be happy... Yaay 2) Please please please do some weighing analysis and explain to me why theory should come first, or as to why your theory precludes other theory in the round.... I will love this arg and it will make me happy.

Impact Calculus:

I love impact calculus. It is probably my favorite part of the round and it is the part I will pay the most attention to. I want to hear the teams in the round describe why their impacts are bigger, badder, meaner (sorry) than the other teams. Sure, evidence analysis is extremely important, but once your case is explained I want to hear why your arguments are more valid and why they are more important and significant.

Speaker Points!!!:

One thing that I do is that I put a lot of emphasis on the 2AR, 1AR, 2NR, 1NR, and 2AC in speaks. I expect these speeches to have direct and logical argumentation. Basically, I don't normally focus too much on the 1AC and 1NC. These normally (from my experience) are just speeches for getting your case out. However, if I do notice good debating, I will always add points My position on speaker points might be a bit different than others, but here is a basic summary of what I do.

Basically, your score at the beginning of the round is 26. If you do good things that make me happy and stuff, your score goes up. Also, good awareness and debating in general also will help your score. Your score will not go down unless I notice some rather large/noticeable errors (Don't worry though, I also screw up from time to time and its no big deal).

23 or less: If you got this score it means that something BIG went wrong. You might of straight up skipped an entire speech, used blatantly offensive language that served no purpose, or not debated at all. 24: This score means that there were quite a few mistakes in the round. If you got this score, it means that you probably didn't understand what was happening during one or two of the speeches, or that there were just a few arguments that you didn't understand. Maybe you completely dropped a topicality argument, or didn't realize that there was more than 1 advantage until the 1AR. Remember, this doesn't mean that your a bad debater, just that this round wasn't the best and that you have some good opportunities. 25: This score is what I would consider to be just a bit below average. If you got this it might means that otherwise you were a 26, but there was 1 or 2 "big" mistakes that I think were not strategic or that were misplaced (say not understanding a K and reading the wrong block in response). It might also mean that you spent a few minutes on a case that was dropped or that didn't have a link. This was in no means a bad debate, just one in which a few mistakes were made that could be done better next time. 26: This is what I consider average. If you have arguments that make some sense, help to strengthen your case, and basically help you get through the round. If you got this score you didn't exude any of the traits that I am considering to be "great debating", but you also did a decent job and didn't mess up too much. 27: You did a good job debating, and your arguments were constructed in a decent manner. You might have done some direct weighing and impact calc, theory construction, etc, but it just wansn't quite enough to get to a 28. You did a decent job, and I think you did a good job. 28: This is what I view as the "lower threshold for a high score". Basically, if you do a good job, have a decent amount of good clash, and overall make sure to have good evidence/argument analysis and make me happy you will get this score. 29: You did a really great job. You aren't quite a 30, but you are very close and still had a good amount of direct clash. I was impressed with your performance and you had good argumentation. 30: This was a truly remarkable debate and I found your clarity, understanding, and ability to communicate and effectively describe the round to be outstanding. You had lots of great and direct clash with opponent arguments and then followed up with reasons to prefer your arguments over your opponents.

(Short version)

23 or less: You didn't debate during all of your speeches 24: You had difficulty understanding what was happening 25: You made 1 or 2 mistakes, but you still did an OK job and did well. 26: Average. You did well and didn't make any major mistakes, but there also wasn't too much that was "above and beyond" 27: You did well and you tried your best to make good points that were effective, but you might not of always ended up being the most strategic 28: You did a good job and I was somewhat impressed by your skill. 29: Great job, relatively few errors and overall great debating 30: Wow! You did a great job and you knew exactly what was happening the entire time and how to respond to it. Good job!

Darrell Smith