Dehmlow+Dunne,+Cameron

Last updated 10/5/17 2nd year debater at Indiana University (Hoo hoo hoosiers!)

Debated for 4 years at New Trier High School

camerondd16@gmail.com -Email, add to email chains.

Both a 2A and a 2N- I both love and hate cheating counterplans. General Updates: Education topic: Have judged 0 rounds on this topic so far, keep that in mind for your T args or if you're going for a super technical-deep DA. You're gonna have to do more explanation- If I'm not getting what the link is in the 1NC, I'll try and make an obvious head tilt to indicate this. I've found that I'm a very emotive judge. If I'm making a weird face or shaking my head, that line of CX questioning or sick new theory arg that 1AR cards are a voting issue isn't something that I'm digging.

Here are immutable rules of debate: The speech times are set, you do not interrupt your opponent's speeches, and there is a resolution that defines the limits of what should be debated that year. What those limits are is up for debate, but they should exist (Hint: This doesn't mean you have necessarily have to read a plan, but your aff should be about the topic).
 * Short version: **

I say clear twice and then stop flowing if you don't get clearer.

"Insert this rehighlighting into the debate" doesn't count- read the new highlighting or I'm not evaluating it.

I’m Gucci with any and all arguments- Tech over truth all the way, if it's dropped it's true (Unless you’re being blatantly offensive, in which case I’ll glare at you until you stop talking while etching 0’s into the ballot). That being said, the more outlandish your claims are the more work you're going to have to do to prove them (i.e. winning ghosts are real is gonna take more explanation than winning a 50% income tax increase is gonna hurt consumer spending).

No takesies backsies in CX answers. They're binding, and I flow them.

I will not vote for any argument that I cannot understand. This both means a lack of speaking clarity in speeches as well as a lack of explanation for k's. Do not rely on me interpreting your enthymemes for you just because I know a lot about critical lit, you will still need to explain your thesis in a coherent manner in order for me to vote for you.

**Evidence reading**: I'm not the type of judge to just call for all relevant cards after the round and just card-war it out. The only times I'll read evidence after the round are: 1. If a 2NR/2AR explicitly flags a card and tells me how amazing the warrant in it is and to read it after the round. 2. If there's conflicting interpretations of what a card says. 3. (Rare) if neither the 2NR/2AR give me a way to resolve the round- Neither team wants this scenario to occur. To pre-empt judge cx after the round: This is an activity based on verbal communication, and I evaluate rounds based on the oratory debating done. My role is not just a prof evaluating two research papers. It doesn't matter if your cards are "on fire" if you haven't leveraged and explained the warrants and how they interact with your opponent's args in your speeches.

-Presumption goes neg if there’s nothing to vote on in round. In the instance of a CP that solves 100% of case with no net bennys, then presumption goes aff. -I will not judge kick CP's absent being instructed to do so in the 2nr (No, just saying "status quo is always an option" in 1NC cx is not instructing me). Kritiks: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Update: Just because you're going for baudrillard doesn't mean you don't have to do line-by-line. I get that long overviews are a part and parcel of some k explanations, but if your whole speech is just an overview rant and you expect me to line up arguments your speaker points are going to be low and I'll only hold the 1AR to the standard of how clean my flow is (Meaning that if the 1AR drops that 2 sentence serial policy failure arg you made in the middle of ranting about disneyland's parking lot the 2AR gets a 2nd chance to respond).
 * Predispositions: **

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">The more complex your K is, the higher the threshold I hold you to explaining it- Obviously there's going to be some inherent knowledge I have that I can't intentionally ignore, but I generally try to judge you as if I don't already know what your K jargon means- For example, if your explanation of D&G in CX is just throwing up a sentence including the words: Rhizomatic, Microfascism, Immanence, and Body without Organs without explaining what those terms mean then I give the other team a lot of leeway when it comes to generic responses and new 1AR args when you suddenly decide to clarify in the block.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I'm willing to vote on K tricks so long as they're clear when made and sufficiently explained when gone for, but if the strat is just loading the 2NC with 20 tricks and going for whichever one the 1AR inevitably drops you're getting mediocre speaker points at best.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> It's very obvious when you haven't taken the 5 minutes before the round to re-tag your cards to make them sound specific to the aff and when you haven't filled in the fill-in-the-blank slots on your overview. The more generic you sound, the worse your speaker points are. Yes, even if your 1NC is just 3 Baudrillard '86 cards, you can still tag them to sound specific to education reform (Speaking from personal experience).

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Yelling gives me a headache, please don't do that. I get rage arguments sometimes require this sort of aggression, but there's a fine line between argumentative fidelity and just being an asshole for no reason.


 * CP's: **

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Update: Please have a base understanding of how SCOTUS works if you're just doing a generic CP against a courts aff. If you PIC out of a part of the aff's ruling, please explain how that operates via a court decision.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Biggest pet peeve is improperly written CP texts- Seriously, aff teams: point out if their CP text is incoherent garbage, you will be rewarded with speaker points and a very heavy aff bias if the CP is gone for. This usually happens in process CP's with default texts and then a janky plantext from the aff side that doesn't grammatically work and the neg didn't bother to proofread. A different scenario is a lazy neg that just doesn't bother filling in the ad-lib structure of most CP texts.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">If they've got a ** specific ** solvency advocate for the CP, then going for theory against it is largely unpersuasive to me. Having a card that says Japan likes to be consulted about things in general is not a specific solvency advocate. Having a card that says Japan likes to be consulted over US tax policy decisions on China & there's historical precedent for it is a specific solvency advocate.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">PICing out of parts of plantext? Acceptable. PICing out of words the aff said other than the plantext? No bueno.


 * DA's: **

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Negs are fighting an uphill battle if their scenario revolves around Trump's PC.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">DA's are nice, link level is probably the most important part of this debate for me as a judge.


 * T: **

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">As stated at the top of this philosophy, I'm not familiar with the Education topic. This means I won't find "core of the topic" args persuasive, and even with topics I'm familiar with I don't really think that's a good argument.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Negs make sure to actually make impacts (Why are limits good?).

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Intent to define is more relevant to me than most.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Neg teams: Make sure your offense links to the aff's counter interpretation rather than just the aff in a vacuum. As a 2A who essentially reads exclusively borderline topical affs, I have picked up far too many ballots on 2N's not understanding <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">this.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Probably more on the side of competing interpretations rather than reasonability, though this is mostly because 2A's do an ass job of explaining how reasonability functions in my decision calculus. Does it mean I give your c/i more weight? Does it mean I just give you a free pass if I like your aff? Should I be nice since I just ate lunch? What's happening here.


 * Theory: **

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Update: Plan-based affs do not get a free pass on having wrong words or incoherent phrasing in their plan text. C'mon y'all, this is the one case where infinite aff prep is true. If an aff's plan text has improperly spelled words or such in it, I'm very likely to vote neg should it be pointed out and made a voting issue. If the 1A realizes their plantext is wrong and uses 1AC speech time to correct it that's fine, but after the 1AC timer ends the plan text is set in stone.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Conditionality's the only reason to reject the team unless other theory violations are straight-up dropped (That being said, if a 2AR manages to convince me that no neg fiat is a voting issue that 2A's getting a 30).

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">There's no distinction between 1 or 500 conditional options, though conditionality can and should magnify other theory args if the 1NC line up is consult CP, delay CP, states CP, etc.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I lean neg on most theory issues (I'm a 2N, sue me)- This comes with the caveat of garbage CP's (Delay, consult w/o specific solvency advocate, etc.).

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">New affs are good, bad disclosure is not.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">2NC cp's are legit, 1NR cp's are not.


 * Framework debates: **

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Update: Thanks to DeLo, my thoughts on fairness have changed. It can definitely be a terminal impact in and of itself, so long as the neg wins that debate is A. a game and B. that that game is good.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Despite my k leanings, I do sympathize with T/framework arguments against non-traditional affs that don't read plan texts. THAT BEING SAID : More times than not the negative doesn't execute these arguments well enough for me to vote for them. In addition to this, my sympathy for these arguments is directly correlated with how close the aff is to the topic (Tangential note on this: Planless affs often think they're far closer to the rez than I think they are). Do they still defend an educational reform but just didn't read a plan? Framework probably shouldn't be the a-strat. They completely ignore the rez and just talk about affect? Framework's a very good option.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">The most important thing for me in these debates is the clarity of internal links & why impacts matter- Why is it that the lack of a plantext guts all predictability? Why should fairness outweigh the aff's knowledge production? These are all good questions to answer.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I don't really find state education args inherently persuasive unless you explain WHY learning about state action is good that fiat doesn't ruin- I'm much more about limits being key to education over all, and fairness being key to having a sustainable game.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">A good T version of the aff is one of the best neg arguments in this debate.


 * Speaker Point Scale: **

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">30-29.5: You're one of if not the best speaker(s) I've heard, and I think you should be top speaker. Obvi exceedingly rare. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">29.5-29.0: I think you're semis/finals quality. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">29.0-28.5: I think you're doubles or octos quality <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">28.4-28.0: I don't think you should break. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">28.0-27.5: I don't think you should be in the open division. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Lower than a 27.5: You said something extremely offensive in the round and I've given you the lowest points I can at this tournament.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">-Major ethos boost if you whip out a paper Schlag file and go ham. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">-PETA is a horrifically unethical organization, if you're interested in learning more about how everyone involved with them is utter trash I'd be happy to talk about that with you.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> Protips : **

<span style="display: block; height: 1px; left: 0px; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; top: 2023px; width: 1px;"> <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">Last updated 10/5/17 <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">2nd year debater at Indiana University (Hoo hoo hoosiers!) Debated for 4 years at New Trier High School camerondd16@gmail.com -Email, add to email chains. Both a 2A and a 2N- I both love and hate cheating counterplans. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: 700; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: middle;">General Updates: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">Education topic: Have judged 0 rounds on this topic so far, keep that in mind for your T args or if you're going for a super technical-deep DA. You're gonna have to do more explanation- If I'm not getting what the link is in the 1NC, I'll try and make an obvious head tilt to indicate this. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">I've found that I'm a very emotive judge. If I'm making a weird face or shaking my head, that line of CX questioning or sick new theory arg that 1AR cards are a voting issue isn't something that I'm digging.

<span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: 700; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: middle;">Short version: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">Here are immutable rules of debate: The speech times are set, you do not interrupt your opponent's speeches, and there is a resolution that defines the limits of what should be debated that year. What those limits are is up for debate, but they should exist (Hint: This doesn't mean you have necessarily have to read a plan, but your aff should be about the topic). <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">I say clear twice and then stop flowing if you don't get clearer. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">"Insert this rehighlighting into the debate" doesn't count- read the new highlighting or I'm not evaluating it. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">I’m Gucci with any and all arguments- Tech over truth all the way, if it's dropped it's true (Unless you’re being blatantly offensive, in which case I’ll glare at you until you stop talking while etching 0’s into the ballot). That being said, the more outlandish your claims are the more work you're going to have to do to prove them (i.e. winning ghosts are real is gonna take more explanation than winning a 50% income tax increase is gonna hurt consumer spending). <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">No takesies backsies in CX answers. They're binding, and I flow them. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">I will not vote for any argument that I cannot understand. This both means a lack of speaking clarity in speeches as well as a lack of explanation for k's. Do not rely on me interpreting your enthymemes for you just because I know a lot about critical lit, you will still need to explain your thesis in a coherent manner in order for me to vote for you. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">Evidence reading: I'm not the type of judge to just call for all relevant cards after the round and just card-war it out. The only times I'll read evidence after the round are: 1. If a 2NR/2AR explicitly flags a card and tells me how amazing the warrant in it is and to read it after the round. 2. If there's conflicting interpretations of what a card says. 3. (Rare) if neither the 2NR/2AR give me a way to resolve the round- Neither team wants this scenario to occur. To pre-empt judge cx after the round: This is an activity based on verbal communication, and I evaluate rounds based on the oratory debating done. My role is not just a prof evaluating two research papers. It doesn't matter if your cards are "on fire" if you haven't leveraged and explained the warrants and how they interact with your opponent's args in your speeches. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: 700; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: middle;">Predispositions: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">-Presumption goes neg if there’s nothing to vote on in round. In the instance of a CP that solves 100% of case with no net bennys, then presumption goes aff. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">-I will not judge kick CP's absent being instructed to do so in the 2nr (No, just saying "status quo is always an option" in 1NC cx is not instructing me). <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: 700; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: middle;">Kritiks: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">Update: Just because you're going for baudrillard doesn't mean you don't have to do line-by-line. I get that long overviews are a part and parcel of some k explanations, but if your whole speech is just an overview rant and you expect me to line up arguments your speaker points are going to be low and I'll only hold the 1AR to the standard of how clean my flow is (Meaning that if the 1AR drops that 2 sentence serial policy failure arg you made in the middle of ranting about disneyland's parking lot the 2AR gets a 2nd chance to respond). <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;"> The more complex your K is, the higher the threshold I hold you to explaining it- Obviously there's going to be some inherent knowledge I have that I can't intentionally ignore, but I generally try to judge you as if I don't already know what your K jargon means- For example, if your explanation of D&G in CX is just throwing up a sentence including the words: Rhizomatic, Microfascism, Immanence, and Body without Organs without explaining what those terms mean then I give the other team a lot of leeway when it comes to generic responses and new 1AR args when you suddenly decide to clarify in the block. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">I'm willing to vote on K tricks so long as they're clear when made and sufficiently explained when gone for, but if the strat is just loading the 2NC with 20 tricks and going for whichever one the 1AR inevitably drops you're getting mediocre speaker points at best. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: 700; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: middle;">It's very obvious when you haven't taken the 5 minutes before the round to re-tag your cards to make them sound specific to the aff and when you haven't filled in the fill-in-the-blank slots on your overview. The more generic you sound, the worse your speaker points are. Yes, even if your 1NC is just 3 Baudrillard '86 cards, you can still tag them to sound specific to education reform (Speaking from personal experience). <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">Yelling gives me a headache, please don't do that. I get rage arguments sometimes require this sort of aggression, but there's a fine line between argumentative fidelity and just being an asshole for no reason. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: 700; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: middle;">CP's: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">Update: Please have a base understanding of how SCOTUS works if you're just doing a generic CP against a courts aff. If you PIC out of a part of the aff's ruling, please explain how that operates via a court decision. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">Biggest pet peeve is improperly written CP texts- Seriously, aff teams: point out if their CP text is incoherent garbage, you will be rewarded with speaker points and a very heavy aff bias if the CP is gone for. This usually happens in process CP's with default texts and then a janky plantext from the aff side that doesn't grammatically work and the neg didn't bother to proofread. A different scenario is a lazy neg that just doesn't bother filling in the ad-lib structure of most CP texts. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">If they've got a <span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: 700; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: middle;">specific solvency advocate for the CP, then going for theory against it is largely unpersuasive to me. Having a card that says Japan likes to be consulted about things in general is not a specific solvency advocate. Having a card that says Japan likes to be consulted over US tax policy decisions on China & there's historical precedent for it is a specific solvency advocate. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">PICing out of parts of plantext? Acceptable. PICing out of words the aff said other than the plantext? No bueno. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: 700; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: middle;">DA's: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">Negs are fighting an uphill battle if their scenario revolves around Trump's PC. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">DA's are nice, link level is probably the most important part of this debate for me as a judge. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: 700; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: middle;">T: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">As stated at the top of this philosophy, I'm not familiar with the Education topic. This means I won't find "core of the topic" args persuasive, and even with topics I'm familiar with I don't really think that's a good argument. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">Negs make sure to actually make impacts (Why are limits good?). <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">Intent to define is more relevant to me than most. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">Neg teams: Make sure your offense links to the aff's counter interpretation rather than just the aff in a vacuum. As a 2A who essentially reads exclusively borderline topical affs, I have picked up far too many ballots on 2N's not understanding this. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">Probably more on the side of competing interpretations rather than reasonability, though this is mostly because 2A's do an ass job of explaining how reasonability functions in my decision calculus. Does it mean I give your c/i more weight? Does it mean I just give you a free pass if I like your aff? Should I be nice since I just ate lunch? What's happening here. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: 700; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: middle;">Theory: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">Update: Plan-based affs do not get a free pass on having wrong words or incoherent phrasing in their plan text. C'mon y'all, this is the one case where infinite aff prep is true. If an aff's plan text has improperly spelled words or such in it, I'm very likely to vote neg should it be pointed out and made a voting issue. If the 1A realizes their plantext is wrong and uses 1AC speech time to correct it that's fine, but after the 1AC timer ends the plan text is set in stone. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">Conditionality's the only reason to reject the team unless other theory violations are straight-up dropped (That being said, if a 2AR manages to convince me that no neg fiat is a voting issue that 2A's getting a 30). <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">There's no distinction between 1 or 500 conditional options, though conditionality can and should magnify other theory args if the 1NC line up is consult CP, delay CP, states CP, etc. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">I lean neg on most theory issues (I'm a 2N, sue me)- This comes with the caveat of garbage CP's (Delay, consult w/o specific solvency advocate, etc.). <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">New affs are good, bad disclosure is not. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">2NC cp's are legit, 1NR cp's are not. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: 700; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: middle;">Framework debates: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">Update: Thanks to DeLo, my thoughts on fairness have changed. It can definitely be a terminal impact in and of itself, so long as the neg wins that debate is A. a game and B. that that game is good. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">Despite my k leanings, I do sympathize with T/framework arguments against non-traditional affs that don't read plan texts.<span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: 700; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: middle;"> THAT BEING SAID : More times than not the negative doesn't execute these arguments well enough for me to vote for them. In addition to this, my sympathy for these arguments is directly correlated with how close the aff is to the topic (Tangential note on this: Planless affs often think they're far closer to the rez than I think they are). Do they still defend an educational reform but just didn't read a plan? Framework probably shouldn't be the a-strat. They completely ignore the rez and just talk about affect? Framework's a very good option. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">The most important thing for me in these debates is the clarity of internal links & why impacts matter- Why is it that the lack of a plantext guts all predictability? Why should fairness outweigh the aff's knowledge production? These are all good questions to answer. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">I don't really find state education args inherently persuasive unless you explain WHY learning about state action is good that fiat doesn't ruin- I'm much more about limits being key to education over all, and fairness being key to having a sustainable game. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">A good T version of the aff is one of the best neg arguments in this debate. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: 700; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: middle;">Speaker Point Scale: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">30-29.5: You're one of if not the best speaker(s) I've heard, and I think you should be top speaker. Obvi exceedingly rare. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">29.5-29.0: I think you're semis/finals quality. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">29.0-28.5: I think you're doubles or octos quality <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">28.4-28.0: I don't think you should break. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">28.0-27.5: I don't think you should be in the open division. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">Lower than a 27.5: You said something extremely offensive in the round and I've given you the lowest points I can at this tournament. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: 700; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: middle;">Protips : <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">-Major ethos boost if you whip out a paper Schlag file and go ham. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 8px 8px 8px 4px; vertical-align: middle;">-PETA is a horrifically unethical organization, if you're interested in learning more about how everyone involved with them is utter trash I'd be happy to talk about that with you.