Rice,+Nathan

Debated for Roswell High School 2011-2015/ UGA 2015 -  Ideal affirmative- 2 well developed advantages + a plan defending a topical action   Ideal 1NC- Several well developed off-case positions and case with a strong combination of offense and defense I have debated as a 2a and a 2n (as I was double 2's in high school) - I appreciate both sides, and I understand the struggles associated with each. __**Overview:**__ Debate is a __communication activity__ - it is your job to persuade me to vote for your specific argument. This means debaters should have a thorough understanding of their arguments, and be able to effectively communicate it to me. I view debate as a game with educational value - I think this forum is important to foster valuable discussion on the opportunity costs of policy actions. Flow please - if you are not flowing the rounds/you are flowing only the speech docs then your speaks will suffer.

__**Argument Preferences:**__ I default to a policy-maker. That being said, I can and often have been persuaded to view the debate through a different lens - it is up to what happens during the round. __**Topicality**__ - I am indecisive on the question of reasonability vs competing interpretations - it really depends on the context of the round - using evidence to contextualize why the aff is reasonable is important if you are affirmative. Giving a list of all the possible ridiculous things the aff's interpretation provides is a good way to hedge back against this. Yes - I do believe many T violations are artificially constructed by the negative to exclude probably topical affirmatives. BUT I also believe that affs often heavily push the line on what is topical AND get away with it b/c most neg teams cannot effectively extend T. Both sides needs offense, and should frame meta levels questions of the T debate for me (Fairness vs Education). __**Performance**__ - While I personally feel I am more adept at judging a debate over the hypothetical implementation of a policy action by the government, I can definitely be persuaded to vote for these affirmatives (and I have been many times). On framework, while I am personally inclined to lean negative, it comes down to which sides has more offense. As the aff, give me reasons why your affirmative is important and use that as offense vs framework. On the negative, give me reasons why the aff compromises the current structure of debate and why that is bad/why the current structure of debate can resolve the issues presented in the 1ac. I think using framework to speak about how debate accesses social change/the issues presented in the 1ac through advocacy skills/deliberation is far more persuasive than the generic fairness claims. I don't think the affirmative gets a permutation without reading a plan text/specific advocacy. __**Disads**__ - Great! The more specific the better. That being said I do love a good politics debate even though I think the internal link chain of the da is absurd at best (most aff teams fail to capitalize on this) - in High School I am pretty sure around 80% of my 2NRs were politics or energy DAs/other topic DAs. __**CPs**__- I love counterplans - especially ones that competitively interact with the specific mechanism of the aff. Consult, condition, delay, etc. are all cheating CPs - the aff should go for the perm and I will be willing to reject these cps on theory. International fiat CPs (EU, China, Japan, etc.) are probably bad, but teams rarely extend International fiat bad. More specific solvency advocates take your cp a long way - especially when the cp is supported by 1ac evidence. Ad hoc grab bag CPs are a personal favorite. __**Kritiks**__ - Not my favorite argument, but I think there is incredible strategic value to it. I am fairly immersed in mainstream K lit, but stuff like Baudrillard, etc. will take more explanation. K tricks need thorough explanation to win even if they are dropped. The aff should leverage their case vs the K. The alternative is definitely the weakest part of most Ks, but I feel that aff teams rarely exploit this. The link is the most important part of the K - if you are neg and are going to have any chance of me voting on this arg you need a very thorough link debate that interacts with the aff (quotes from the 1ac, etc.). I look to the framework debate first when deciding K flows - win framework and impact what that means. __**Case**__- __Love__ a thorough case debate! Most affs are non sensical and can be beaten with only a few arguments. Impact turn debates are a fun strategy but often get incredible messy. I think there needs to be a strong mix of offense and defense on case in the 1NC. Numbering arguments will make me happy/keep things organized.

__**Evaluation of debates -**__ ** 10) ** I will do my best to hold the line on new 2nr/2ar arguments - BUT you need to at least tell me to do so in the debate. If the 2nr makes a new fiat illusory argument, and the aff says nothing, then I will probably evaluate it. New 2ar spin is inevitable, but if it shouldn't be unfounded in the other affirmative speeches - good 2nrs should pre-empt this. __**Speaker Points**__ - Remember that getting a 28.5 in novice is not the same as getting a 28.5 in varsity - I change the way I evaluate points based on division/tournament (a 28.5 at a local tournament may be equivalent to a 27.5 at a large national tournament). I often find myself giving speaker points within the 28-28.9 range, with outliers on both sides. 29.6-30: One of, if not the best performance I have seen in a given year - technically flawless and incredibly persuasive. 29-29.5: Very strong speaker - a fantastic performance in the round. 28.5-28.9: A good performance - technicalities/strategic vision and/or ethos can be improved, but overall a very good debate. 28-28.4: A decent performance - key elements lacking in strategy/technicalities/persuasive abilities that prevent a higher point range. But overall no excessive glaring issues. 27.5-28: One or two glaring issues in the debate in your strategic vision, technicalities, and/or ethos. 27-27.4: Several glaring issues in the debate in your strategic vision, technicalities, and/or ethos. 26-27: A large number of severe issues in the debate in strategic vision, technicalities, and/or ethos. Anything below 26 - offensive, excessively rude, etc. Conduct in the debate was poor - this is very rare. Have fun and do your best!
 * 1)** Tech vs Truth - I tend to err on the idea that a conceded argument is true, but to make this impact my ballot you are responsible for a) pointing out an argument is dropped b) thoroughly explaining the dropped argument and c) telling me how it impacts the round. That being said, there are some arguments that are objectively false (for example I will not vote on something that tells me the sun orbits the Earth)
 * 2)** Death is probably bad. Other arguments like Time Cube, Spark, etc. are unpersuasive THOUGH if dropped or completely mishandled, I will vote for them. Anything offensive to the other team (racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, etc) will not be tolerated.
 * 3)** Meta framing is incredibly important - tell me essential questions in the round that I have to resolve. Framing issues/nexus questions help elucidate what you think is a critical part of the round, and I will respond accordingly.
 * 4)** Impact framing is a __must__ - I feel that often most debates are resolved over impact calc done in the final speeches. Tell me how to view your impact vs other impacts - does your impact access theirs? If so awesome! point it out. Tell me what criterion to view the debate through (TF, probability, magnitude). Turns case is devastating when it interacts well with case, though I often think most turns case arguments lack uniqueness (for example, Immigration reform may boost the US economy, but absent CIR the economy doesn't collapse).
 * 5)** I rarely call for evidence unless it is essential to determining key questions in the debate - I prefer a strong warranted analytic over a poor quality card any day. If something is important in the debate - flag it for me.
 * 6)** Author indicts go a long way
 * 7)** There can be 0 risk of an argument - especially with technical concessions
 * 8)** Presumption flips neg unless the neg reads a CP that results in more change than the aff
 * 9)** I will not kick the CP for you in the 2nr unless speifiically instructed to do so