Reid,+Ben

Competed in speech and debate at Park Hill in KCMO for 4 years. 4th year debater at McKendree University

When it comes to evaluating the substantive debate, I generally imagine myself as a policymaker. In an ideal world, the affirmative would defend the imagined implementation of a topical plan text, and the negative would defend either the status quo or a competitive (preferably functionally and textually) counter plan. That said, my role as a policy maker is subordinate to my role as an observer and participant in a game. Thus, absent the establishment of some kind of an alternative judging framework, I generally default to evaluating topicality, theory and other procedurals first. Beyond that, the substantive debate will be evaluated based on how it shakes out. While it goes without saying at this point, what you are reading are only my predilections and preferences regarding judging policy debates. Nothing is set in stone. If you are winning arguments indicating that the critical debate is antecedent to the procedural debate, then the critical debate is antecedent to the procedural debate (though your chances of winning that argument in front of me are probably pretty tenuous). To me, the rebuttals are the critical speeches in the debate. Decisions are made based upon specific comparative impact and link analysis work done in the rebuttals. Unfortunately, I find that specific, logical impact analysis is often overlooked, and this makes me sad, because it's usually the most interesting and important part of a debate.

__**Topicality**__—I go for topicality fairly regularly. When it's done well, I'm a big fan of T debates. Topicality is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. The affirmative does not get to win because they read a topical affirmative. Topicality is probably always a question of competing interpretations. I've yet to hear an argument for why reasonability is a preferable topicality framework, and I'm still not sure I've heard a logical explanation of what reasonability would even mean in this context. This means you need to do work on the standards debate. Topicality debates, like all debates, are impact debates, and that's how I'd prefer you to approach them.

__**Spec**__—Do not let (insert silly specification argument) be your A-strat. I think these arguments are largely anti-educational. If the 2NR is 5 minutes of spec, then something has gone horribly, horribly wrong, and nobody’s going to get much in the way of speaker points. I understand the utility of reading A/F/E-spec as link insurance for your CP/DA, and will not hold the fact that you read a 1NC shell against you. If the affirmative unfairly shifts their agent in responding to the negative’s substantive strategy, then the negative will not be punished for going for spec in the 2NR. This hypothetical example is probably the lone caveat to my distaste for this position as a judge. Otherwise, just... don't do it.

__**Critiques**__—I'm having a difficult time trying to figure out how to write this section. I'm having a difficult time striking a balance between wanting you to do what you do best, and encouraging people to go for the critique when it's their best strategic option, and still giving you an idea of how I generally think about these positions. Frankly, I prefer to read DA/CP/Case strategies as a debater, and these positions are the ones I'm most knowledgeable about and comfortable evaluating.. That said, I appreciate the educational and competitive value of critiques and want you to do what you do best and what's most strategic in the context of a particular debate. I generally think you should have specific link evidence in your 1NC shell, and that clear alternatives with explicit solvency evidence are critical to the negative’s chances of winning these positions. The negative would do well to have specific blocks to common permutations cut. Absent baller framework cards to the contrary I tend to believe the affirmative should be allowed to weigh case against the critique, which magnifies the importance of your alt. solvency evidence. DnG makes my brain hurt. Be clear. Don't assume I've read your authors in the same depth you have, because I haven't. You should probably know that in most cases, I'm not sure why the alt solves (and I often find that the perm solves about as well as the alternative), so you should make that clear (and make explicit differentiations between the solvency of the perm and the alternative).

__**Disadvantages**__—You should read them. The impacts can be as big as your evidence warrants. The quality of the link evidence is generally what I find to be most important. Specific, intrinsic, highly probable, big impact disads with fast time frames are my favorite negative arguments. Reading them, reading them well, and going for them will make me happy, and that bodes well for you.

__**Counterplans**__—I tend to side with the neg in theory debates. Theory is most likely a reason to reject the position, not the team. The legitimacy of your CP will be indicated by the quality and specificity of your solvency evidence. If you can solve most of the aff and have a small, clever net-benefit, you’re in good shape. The affirmative would benefit from reading disadvantages to the CP. You're probably better off not saying consult, delay or veto/cheato (though, if your solvency ev is good, I find consult less repulsive than the other two).

__**Case**__—Good case debate is often the most enjoyable type of debate to watch. If the negative has sweet, specific answers to the aff and a DA with good link evidence, they will likely win. I think the affirmative should be topical.

__**Offense/Defense**__—Offense wins debates. I can’t deny this. That said, smart defense is better than stupid offense. I tend to think your defense will legitimize your offense. It makes your offensive claims more appealing, and provides weight they might not otherwise have. I often reward debaters who make smart, defensive arguments an integral part of their strategy. Terminal defense is probably a thing.

__**Impact Prioritization**__—You should be doing this work in round, but if, for some reason you aren't, I evaluate argument types in the following order: 1) Topicality 2) Other procedural/theory arguments 3) Substance. I will likely privilege impact probability to magnitude, though ideally, your impacts are both big and probable (and fast, too).

__**Paperless**__ **—**I don't think you have to use prep-time to flash cards to the other team. Don't use this as an excuse to steal prep. That turns out bad for you.

I think this covers most of my assumptions and defaults. If you have a more specific question, feel free to ask before the debate.