Adler,+Steven

toc Steven Adler Mercer Island '11 Brown '15 Updated 02/12/2016

Harvard 2016 Update: 1) First tournament judging this year, but I've watched rounds elsewhere when visiting friends and speed and all that is still fine; 2) I don't know topic-specific community norms, so if these come up I will evaluate them as best I can; 3) Prep time ends when the flash drive exits your computer; 4) If you want high speaks, give a great final speech that has an overview of issues in the round and explains why that leads to a ballot for you

TOC '14 UPDATE: In case this wasn't clear before, I just want to make this explicit: If there are "game over" arguments in the 1NC or things that interact with critical portions of the AC, you should label these/make these applications in the first speech. If implications come out new in the 2NR, after the Aff chose their 1AR strategy around their absence, I'm inclined to favor the Aff, or at least listen to new 2AR responses. That isn't to say that I lean Aff on all extension issues--I just think Neg should make somewhat clear the important implications so that Aff can choose an informed strategy.

**Background**
I debated for Mercer Island (WA) for four years, graduating in 2011. I qualified to the TOC twice, reaching the octafinal round my senior year. For the first two years of my career, I primarily competed locally. For the last two, I mostly traveled nationally.

**Short Version**
I erred on the side of overwriting so that all debaters have fair access to knowing my views on debate. __**My recommendation is that you read the rest of this short version and supplement it by reading specific sections about which you might have concerns.**__ Feel free to ask any questions before the round, although the more specific the better.

My paradigm has few hard and fast rules. I will evaluate debater's arguments and will try to avoid using my subjective views in the decision calculus. I recognize that such absolute objectivity is not possible, so I have listed below my thoughts on different norms. These are soft preferences that I will default to absent some discussion of them in the round. Feel free to argue that we should adopt some other outlook on these issues. The easiest way to pick up my ballot is to be clear on what these issues are in the round and how their implications justify a ballot. If you do a good job justifying your implications and comparing them to those of your opponent, you will likely win and get high speaks.

Speed is fine. Theory is fine. Progressive argument structures are fine. I will say clear. I will evaluate RVIs just like any other argument. Extensions should have a claim, warrant, and implication--I'm sympathetic to the time-crunched Affirmative and will give some lenience on extending conceded arguments, but if you're planning on using that extension to answer back objections, weigh, or something else that you should probably be doing, a stronger warrant will definitely work in your favor. If there is a difference between what you read and what you hand your opponent, you should let them know, or I will side with them. I will listen to CX, but you should draw attention to important concessions. Please layer and compare your arguments if 1AR theory is introduced; do not just blip a bunch of arguments as the 2NR out for me to wade through, or I'll be displeased.

**Speaking Preferences**

 * Speed is fine and probably preferred, as long as it's clear. I will give an indication if it is not. There were no debaters in my class who were too fast for me to flow, so that should not be an issue; there were some who were too unclear.
 * You should indicate somehow where cards or arguments end and the next begins.
 * Slow down for tags and author names.

**Frameworking**

 * Preempts should articulate what they exclude and why. If the first speech is missing an implication, I will be sympathetic to responses to cross-applications.
 * Label framework arguments, particularly if they are short analytics.

**Theory**

 * I default to competing interps. My default interpretation of reasonability is that in-round abuse should be demonstrated. Feel free to contest either.
 * You must clarify if the interpretation you read is different than the one you hand your opponent.
 * I am inclined to believe that Fairness outweighs or at least constrains Education, and that will be my default absent some argument made in-round. With that said, you should absolutely be comparing between the voters from the moment the two are first introduced. Feel free to argue E > F or whatever you want.
 * Potential abuse is fine as a voter. I'm also fine with it as a reason to reject the argument.

**CX**

 * CX is binding.
 * Don't lie, be vague, intentionally unclear, etc. Your speaks might be docked.
 * I don't care if you sit or stand, but you should be active and interested.
 * Questions during prep time are fine.

**Kritiks**

 * Have clear tags.
 * Kritiks should link back through an ethical framework, just like any other arguments.

**Extension Evidence**

 * Should respond directly to an objection--don't read new floating offense.
 * I don't think you can read a new, post-dating Uniqueness card to answer back objections to your initial one.

**RVIs**

 * Will evaluate like any argument.
 * Will evaluate 2AR RVIs in response to new 2NR theory.
 * By default, need offense back to a counter-interp. Fine with the argument that an "I meet" should trigger.

Perms

 * Tests of competition by default.

**Weighing**

 * Do it--the earlier the better.
 * 2AR weighing is probably fine if your opponent hasn't started weighing in the NC AND if this weighing isn't contingent on making new indicts of their arguments.
 * Give overviews at the beginning of the 2NR and 2AR that frame the round.

**How to Get Good Speaks**

 * Weigh early and specifically. Good weighing compares the internals of arguments and explains their interactions.
 * Use even-if scenarios. I get that the 2AR is time-crunched, but I think the time tradeoff in big-picture overviews is likely worth it. In the last speech, you should be explaining what argument you're about to win, winning that argument, and then explaining why that justifies a ballot for you. Don't just tunnel down into the flow for the entirety of the speech.
 * Execute a positional strategy well.
 * Be very clear in CX. The best debaters are very upfront with their arguments, the warrants for them, and what they justify. If you are fair in explaining arguments to your opponent, the round will be much more enjoyable, and you will be rewarded for your efforts.
 * Show conceptual understanding of what you need to win to win the round. Going for everything in the last rebuttal is typically a poor strategy in front of me. Please do not feel that you are obligated to not drop anything; instead, focus on explaining how what you are winning accounts for those drops and is sufficient for a ballot regardless.

If I think that you should clear, you will probably get between a 28.5 (on the border) and a 30 (flawless/I learned something/you did something great that I think you should be rewarded for). If I think that you should not clear, you will probably get between a 25 (my lowest without a punitive reason--I don't expect to give very many of these) and a 27.5. 28s will be for rounds with which I'm not really sure what to do--ones where each debater is marginally doing the things necessary to win, but not really interacting their arguments with their opponent's or providing a coherent ballot story.

Closing
I really enjoyed my time in debate, and I hope you will as well. Ask me whatever questions you want before the round, and enjoy your time in the activity.