Chiles,+James+Tag

About me: Two-time NDT Participant CEDA and NDT Quarterfinalist 2015. University of Oklahoma 2012-2016 Rounds on Surveillance: ~20ish now I have judged for about 6 years.


 * Spring 2016's streamlined version**

I'll try and keep this as short as possible while still being useful. If you don't have much time, here are the basics: Run anything you want if you have thought how you can win with it or if there is intrinsic value to the position despite its dearth of strategic value. Speed is fine, K AFF's are fine, T to answer K AFF's are also fine. Impact turns are also fine if you can reconcile ethical dilemmas involved with them, I appreciate that issues are complicated, so I won't reduce your speaker points for adopting a position that you are capable of defending adequately.

I think debate is best when the debaters feel like the judge is going to fairly evaluate arguments based on what happened in the round and not vote on their own whims or predispositions. So I will try and do that.

"Tech > Truth" is not what I would call it, because debate techne only matters insofar as it is related to an argument that can implicate a truth that is substantiated by another argument. The standard for drops are "Was it actually not answered?" and "Does the implication outlined reasonably follow the claim and warrants that precede it?"

=
I debated with a policy focus in my earlier debate career, but had much more interest and success in the critique genre of debate style later on. I like to think I am capable of judging both, but I am simply more familiar with the Policy vs. K and K vs. K debates, so I will probably take longer with a policy round due to unfamiliarity.=====

=

 * T / Framework** -- AFFs should affirm an example of the resolution, this is a strategic consideration, not an ethical one (my opinion). I'm looking for debates over intepretation that have a vision of what debates look like under both interpretations (this is both a strategic and an ethical consideration due to it effecting others).=====

I am more interested in the fairness (predictable limits, good ground, etc.) and education (portable-skills, topic-knowledge, etc.) standards and their contextual scenarios to whatever interpretation rather than the most theoretically abstract impact turns seen when answering framework and the hyperbolic impacts espoused by many NEG framework shells that have such an inflated view of the activity that it lacks credibility. What is key are well-developed contextual advantages that compares the two interpretations or their application.

NEGs should have some way of answering AFF impact turns. Most impact turns to framework address premises the NEG introduced first, so the impact turn is inherently predictable on that basis, or it doesn't link: take your pick.

Finally, K AFFs can and should be justified in the activity by the merits of such an inclusion, not merely an impact turn. This is entirely winnable, and far more persuasive to me than K AFFs that don't offer a vision of debate and give the NEG large net-benefits. Debates should be fair, but there are other considerations as well.

=

 * Policy Debate vs. K's** -- AFFs and NEGs should have to defend the ways in which they put their arguments together. Both sides also need to defend the consequences of problem-solving methods that are a result of the arguments defended. I'm more persuaded by Framework arguments that lay-out solvency-deficits to the alternative as a consequence of the application of theory as an objection to the AFF rather than the suggestion that the alternative or links are not to be considered at all. I have not yet been compelled by theory arguments vs. Rejection Alts, but I have been persuaded by arguments against PIKs.=====


 * Role of the ballot / judge--** I would like to know if this is a framework, solvency, or impact argument that is being made. If it actually is about the roles that ballots play in debate, that would interest me quite a bit. I don't think the other team needs a counter role of the ballot (unless this is actually a framework question) so long as they are answering the premises that substantiate this argument.


 * Method v. Method --** Interesting concept, I am more on the "Aff gets perms" side of the argument. However, I am definitely compelled by a metric of competition that facilitates narrow disagreements so long as the debate could be important, feasibly in depth, and overall: a good debate. The key factor is disagreement somewhere along the line, and the impacting of those disagreements.

**Deciding the Round:**
Primary order of consideration:

Theory / Reasons to Reject. What world(s) am I evaluating? What criteria makes an impact important. Which side solves relevant impacts comparatively?

I write out my decision in subpoint format before confirmation on tabroom or signing my ballot. If upon further recollection of the round that casts doubt upon the decision that I have sketched, I will redo the decision, and repeat until I can justify a ballot for either team. I will attempt to address what I believe will be the 3NR/3AR or ways in which other judges may have seen a ballot in the other direction, so I ask that you let me finish with my RFD before speaking up yourself. At that point, I will let you speak your mind or ask questions.


 * Defaults:**

On Perms: I assign burden to the affirmative to explain why the permutation solves the link or net-benefits first before I assign a negative burden to create solvency deficits beyond a link. You will have to overcome this bias with a warrant.

On Judge-Conditionality: I tend to only evaluate the world gone for explicitly by the 2NR/2AR. If you opt for judge-conditionality, in the 2NR you should preempt 2AR arguments that answer such options.

On Framework to the K: I will default to the negative's framework spelled out in how the alternative and links are evaluated absent AFF framework arguments that ask for a different means of evaluation. **If you are aff, a helpful tip from me** **would be** to make quick link arguments from your advantage to the alternative as to how the alternative would preclude your advantage. For example: If it is a critique of Security, you should make arguments as to why a security frame is necessary to your advantages. This means that even if they win you can't weigh the plan, your impact arguments could be potential impact turns to the alternative in the abstract.


 * Speaker Points:**

I tend to give high speaker points for - Knowledge, and effective, contextual application thereof. - Organization and technique, especially regarding impact debate. - Clarity and presence. - Humility and honesty. - Argument selection and the well-warranting of chosen arguments. - Clever technical execution that aligns with intuitive warrants.

I mostly reduce speaker points for - Arrogantly feigning knowledge rather than admitting your present limits. - Lack of clarity. - Overuse of claims above warrants. - Poor concept of round-deciding issues. - Misuse of the phrase "conceded" or "dropped"


 * Other notes on debates I tend to judge:**