Rigsby,Chad

Affiliation: Director of Debate, Saint George’s School I think that debate is a combination of strategic game and comparative storytelling. At the end of the round, I tend to vote for the team that has the best grasp of how the arguments on the flow work for them, and can articulate that at a level that sees the round as a whole. Although I value technical line-by-line ability, I think that it is usually secondary to a real understanding of how the parts of the round work together. I place enormous value on comparisons—especially in the last two speeches—and I think that the ability to construct an overview specific to the round at hand is sometimes a lost art. That said, here are some specific thoughts:
 * 1)  Most of my debating and judging happened in the 90s. I debated in and judged a lot of good high school and college rounds in those days. I’ve watched plenty of high school rounds in the last five years, and have watched occasional out rounds at the NDT and other college tournaments. I can still flow. I think the activity is pretty much the same. Still, if you’ve got some brand new, cutting edge theory, then you should assume that I may not have heard of it yet, and that I definitely never debated it.
 * 2)  I do have predispositions about arguments, but I have voted many times for arguments that made my stomach hurt. I value intelligent comparisons more than just about anything else, and I often find myself voting for teams that recognize an overarching comparison that cleans the round up. You won’t find a lot of specifics here about my feelings on artificial competition, severance, etc., because if I write them down, then you’ll just feel blindsided if somebody outdebates you on them, and the round shakes down in an unpredictable direction. Be smart and address your opponents’ arguments. If you can imagine and articulate a world in which your opponent wins all—or almost all—of their offense, but you still win the round, then you will almost certainly get my ballot.
 * 3)  I think that most debaters would actually be more efficient and quicker overall if they slowed down a little bit. Also, topicality, theory, and critical debates are generally conducted at much too fast a pace. If you don’t slow down, my flow will tend to fall apart in these areas; it’s in your interest to keep me in the game.
 * 4)  Bold and strategic decision-making often carries its own reward.
 * 5)  I think that good, intuitive defensive arguments do serve a purpose in substantive debate. It really is possible to minimize links, impacts, solvency, etc., down to a point where they don’t really matter in a strategic way. Obviously, counterplans often change these equations, and I like to hear that sort of analysis, as well.
 * 6)  I absolutely prefer kritiks with clear discursive or methodological impacts to those that look like wildly generic, non-unique disadvantages.
 * 7)  I view topicality as a disadvantage to ground. There needs to be a clear link and impact; it is conceivable that those impacts might be outweighed or criticized; admittedly, that is an uphill battle. Link and impact comparisons are just as important in topicality debates as they are anywhere else.
 * 8)  If you want me to vote for a specific theory argument, you’ll have to persuade me that there’s a compelling reason to reject the team, instead of just tossing out the argument. The presence of an intrinsic perm, on face, does not seem like a reason to vote negative; multiple conditional counterplans, on the other hand, might be an easier sell. Also: be aware of theoretical contradictions within your own strategy. Does it make sense, for example, to defend artificial competition and complain about intrinsic perms at the same time? That sort of comparison could get you a long way in a tight theory debate.
 * 9)  For the most part, I think that the round is yours to debate. Above all, be friendly and honest and have a good time.