Leonard,+Jacob

Affiliation: La Costa Canyon

Background: I debated for 3 years in high school at La Costa Canyon in San Diego, and am now a freshman at UC Berkeley. I'm helping coach LCC when I can.

I haven't judged any rounds on this topic, so if you're reading a ports aff, don't expect my knowledge of the local political climate of the Alaskan Port Authority to be as in depth as yours. Explain your arguments, go easy on the acronyms, and we're in business. I know this wiki is looongg, so feel free to read whatever seems relevant to you and skip the rest.

__General:__

The judges I always preffed the highest in high school were the ones who, when adjudicating the debate, most limited the influence of their own argument biases and predispositions. I will try my best to do the same. I don't favor critical over straight up arguments, and read lots of both in high school. To put that in perspective, my senior year I read biopower and levinas on the aff, and went for a process counterplan and politics most neg rounds. Do what you do best, and what you like most. If you know your stuff and debate well, then I'll enjoy the debate all the same.

With that being said, here are some things that probably shouldn't matter too much, but depending on what kind of debater you are, may be important:

__Behavior in round:__

Be civil. Being snarky and/or assertive is perfectly fine, but if speaker points are important to you, you should try your best to treat everybody in the room with respect. That also includes your partner. I was double 2s my senior year, and I understand that everybody's partnership situation is different. I'm not going to storm out of the room if you start answering your partner's cross-x questions, or prompt them mid-speech. But if the round starts looking more like a puppet show than a debate between 4 human beings, somebody's speaker points are going to take the hit.

On that note, __Speaker Points:__

I can't really break down, here's how to earn a 29, a 28, ect. Everybody has a different debate style, and different things matter in different rounds. In general, if I can understand most of what is coming out of your mouth, you didn't directly insult me, and you made it all the way to the 2ar, you'll get a 27. Everything beyond that point is up to you. Fast, not so fast, funny, serious, doesn't matter. Be persuasive, and smart, and it will be reflected in your speaker points.

__Calling for cards:__

I WILL probably call for a couple cards after the debate, but I will NOT ask for the 2nc speech doc and disappear behind my laptop for 30 minutes reading all your cards. Your analysis, spin, framing, whatever you want to call it, of your evidence can be just as important as the quality of your evidence. If you don't flag the specific cards in the debate that you think are important, I probably won't call for them.

__Topicality:__

Make sure that you actually have an impact to your topicality argument. "Voter for fairness and education" is not compelling to me. You've probably heard this before, but treat T like a disad, and warrant your arguments. If 3 second T violations are your thang, strike me. This may be the 2a in me speaking, but I think reasonability is a vastly underused defensive argument for the aff, and although I will probably walk into the room defaulting to competing interpretations, I'd be thrilled if you could persuade me otherwise.

__Theory:__

This is my least favorite type of argument to watch being debated badly. Yes you have a theory block. No, that doesn't mean you don't have to flow the other teams theory arguments. Theory, if done well, can be just as enjoyable to watch as anything else in debate. I like theory and went for it quite a bit in high school. If the neg is reading 3 or more condo advocacies, condo bad in front of me is a pretty good idea. I tend to lean neg on most theory questions with the exception of extra shady word PICs and more than 2 or 3 condo advocacies. I can be convinced otherwise on all of the above quite easily though.

__Counterplans:__

Not much to say. These were my favorite arguments in high school. Go for it.

__Disads:__

Obviously fine. Overviews are great if they don't overstay their welcome. Hint: If you are two minutes into your speech and not yet on the line-by-line, there's a problem. Speaking of which, line-by-line is great. Use it.

Sidenote: A 2nc or 1nr on a disad that doesn't start with the battle cry of "DISAD TURNS AND OUTWEIGHS THE CASE!" would be greeatttllyy appreciated, and rewarded in your speakz. Originality in general is great for your speakz actually.

__Kritiks:__

These are fine, but this may be second on the list of most painful arguments to watch being debated badly. K's may have a rep for being conducive to bullshit, but if you clearly don't know what you're talking about, it's going to show. Know your argument, be able to explain your alternative, and have a clearly defined impact and framework argument. There are a LOT of books and philosophies out there that all make great K's. I have read almost none of them. That doesn't mean I won't have a general understanding of the common stock of kritik authors, but it does mean that if you would like to shout a french poem at me in the 1nc about ontological univosity, a 30 second overview in the 2nc would be kindly appreciated. Again, I don't wanna stop you from doing what makes you happy and being creative, but I'm a humble business major, not a philosophy major or classical poetry enthusiast.

__Performance, non-traditional, ect:__

Meh, not my favorite. If you are neg against these teams, framework arguments are great but they shouldn't be your only strategy. Performance teams expect f/w, and are usually pretty good at answering it. Interesting topicality and solvency arguments are much harder for the aff to brush away, and just much more compelling in general. If you are reading a "performance" affirmative make sure that by the end of the debate, I know what it is that you are advocating, what the role of my ballot is, and what the ultimate implication of voting affirmative is. If those issues remain unclear or unresolved in the debate, presumption is gunna start sounding pretty good to me.

That's about it. I look forward to watching your debate, and good luck!