Rashad+Evans

Experience: Former West Georgia Debater (Won CEDA and was a Semifinalist at the NDT) Affiliations: Director of Debate at West Connecticut State University and Head Coach for The Bronx School for Law, Government and Justice. (Special thanks to Charles for putting this up :D )

I think that the affirmative should be topical, unconditional and better than the status quo. I think that the negative should be competitive with the Affirmative (in other words must prove aff to be a bad idea or otherwise undesirable). Outside of that, I view each and every debate as a performance and every performance as new. Accordingly, it's never just about the argument made but also the circumstances surrounding the argument including when it was said, where it was said, how it was said, how it was handled in the cross examination, how it interacts with other arguments in the debate and how it was responded to or not responded to. No two teams make the same argument even when making the same argument and no single team can make the same argument in two debates even when making the same argument in two debates. The debate always changes and my reaction to the argument will always be different. This is importance because I am interested in deciding the debate in front of me between the debaters in front of me and every time I walk into a room to judge a debate I am looking to reward someone for persuading me to vote for something because such is the name of the game. The performance frame is relevant because I view my role as judge as choosing the better of two (competing) debate performances. This is what I derive from the question: who did the better debating. Therefore, the very best advice I can give you is to focus on beating the team in front of you and not to get caught up on any argument, theory, framework, card, rumor or advice. Beat the other team's arguments. I prefer teams who pay attention to their presentation and my reception of that presentation. I prefer teams who care about organization and and are more interested in clarity (all around) than confusion/sloppiness. I DO NOT like it when debaters show a lack of regard for the organization of my ("THE") flow. Organization is important to an effective debate performance. And, sloppy debating increases the risk of a sloppy decision. Other things that might make me different from other judges (as I read these philosophies) 1. I don't care if you are nice. I prefer a lil shade in my debates. I like it when teams fight over my ballot! But, don't be mean if you are losing. That's annoying. 2. I am not the prep time police. If the other team can beat your argument because they had an extra few seconds of prep you were likely going to lose anyways. I mean, I rather not be there all day, but I am not keeping track of jump drives and bathroom breaks. Anyone who has played this game knows it doesn't matter. 3. I am team reasonability over competing interpretations. This used to be the norm and I am shocked at the shift. 4. Be ware of the presumption. My view of presumption means that any close debate goes to the negative. My job should not be to agonize over facts or truth. If the Aff finds themselves in this position they lose. It's a failed Affirmative performance. 5. The negative gets no help from me when it comes to theory. I don't have a high threshold for voting for theory; I have a low threshold. Just win the damn argument. I line the args up on my flow and compare almost as if I were hand stitching a baseball and then I decide. These are the absolute easiest debates for me to decide in either way. 6. Beware of the new 2AR argument. If the 2AR makes a new argument that is true and helps resolve an issue opened up or left unresolved by the 2NR or otherwise helps me decode the debate more clearly it's okay with me. Such is the consequence of a failed negative performance. 7. Diversity is important to me. Not just sexual harassment. 8. The negative most probably gets process CPs, generic CPs based on the resolution, and anything based on the plan. Whoever questions this is ruining the game. These are base arguments that weed out inferior Affs and teams. If the Aff can't beat these arguments it is a failed affirmative performance. 9. Speed is most probably good. I'd prefer not to preside over this debate. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">10. Every debate should be approached as a clash of civilizations debate or your are playing wrong.