Baum,+Zach

Background - I debated for Edgemont High School. This is my fourth year out of high school (2009), and I don’t debate in college. I’ve probably debated at about 60 tournaments in my career and judged at 25.

Topicality – the default framework I use for evaluating topicality is competing interpretations. I am typically persuaded by whichever team argues that their interpretation sets a more reasonable limit on the topic, provides a case list, and explains which key set of arguments or important subset of the literature their opponents exclude. Having a definition with an intent to define is also important. Saying that topicality is a reverse voting issue will lose you speaker points. I generally think affs should specify their agent.

Critiques – I'd prefer to see a debate that involved counterplans and disads. But I'd much much much rather see a great debate about an argument that you know inside and out than a bad debate about a politics disad. So if you're negative, give your arguments some context and specifically apply them to the aff. The most important part of the critique is the alternative, which should be coupled with a discussion of what the role of the ballot is, and an articulation of how that alternative solves the links and what, if any, part of the case. I have a strong bias against floating PICs.

Disads – you should definitely have some of these. The fewer the internal links, and more case-specific the better. I think that there is such thing as a 0% risk of a disad – when there is no link, there is simply no link. You don’t need evidence to prove this.

CPs/Theory – If I could describe my perfect round, it would be one where the negative ran a very specific PIC to the aff, and the aff has offense justifying whatever it is the neg has excluded. These rounds reveal to me that both sides have done their research and are willing and ready to engage in a substantive policy debate about the plan. I enjoy hearing agent counterplans, but have a bias against consult counterplans. When it comes to theory, it helps to have an interpretation and counter-interpretation of what is legitimate. Questions of functional vs. textual competition are extremely important, especially when running consult, condition, and language PICs.

Evidence – My favorite part about debate is research, and I will reward teams who show me that they’ve done their homework. Good evidence from peer-reviewed sources is critical to substantiate your claims. I won’t consider parts in cards that weren’t read unless the context is questioned, so highlighting is important. Cards with 7 words in them are not evidence. Weighing qualifications will get you high points and will help you win. I write down the first word and last word of cards, so don’t clip or cross-read. If I catch you, you will lose.

Non-traditional arguments – If you generally run performance arguments, I’m warning you to strike me now. I strongly believe that in order for substantive, academic, and topical debate to occur, the aff must have a plan and the neg must refute that plan. We have a topic for a reason. If, unfortunately for both of us, you get stuck with me, please do your best to relate your arguments to the topic and engage the other team’s arguments.

If you have any questions, please ask.