He,+Oliver

Debated policy at Wayzata for 4 years. I would usually break at natcircuit tournaments and then GG out. nothing special.

Berkeley debaters: Remember to ask for your pen back when I borrow it if you don't want me to steal it.

=**POLICY**=

Hi Berkeley debaters. I have yet to judge a round on this topic and have only judged two tournament of LD this year, so please forgive me if I clear you, just kidding, that's your fault if I can't understand. Clarity can help or hurt your speaker points. If you can't do that at least make a strong effort to __**differentiate the tags and cites from the text of the card and make the tags clear.**__

Best Policy Debater I've seen: GBN: Nate Sawyer (29.9, No prep win)

**Fun Speaker Point Things (because I'm the judge and I can. more boring stuff scroll down)**
Avg speaks estimate is probably a 28.1 for LD and 27.6 for policy. I find that I can be generous if you impress, harsh if you disappoint. However that doesn't include these fun gambles you can take.


 * Only one of these can be invoked in a round (i.e. if you go for half prep I won't give you debater's dilemma, but I will for the other team)**


 * The Debater's Dilemma** - I like game theory so this is my little innovation with credit to Rebar Niemi for the inspiration of its evolution. After I have decided, signed my ballot, and decided what speaks you deserve, I will ask you who you think won the debate. You will tell me with your hands without the other person knowing one of three options: a). one finger, indicating you won the debate b) two fingers indicating the opponent won the debate c) no fingers, indicating you don't want to participate. What will happen to your speaker points is shown in the following table. This is a work in process and the table will be continually updated.


 * || Aff is Correct || Aff is Wrong || Aff doesn't answer ||
 * Neg is Correct || Both get .1 || Neg gets .3 Aff loses .3 || Neg gets .2 ||
 * Neg is Wrong || Aff gets .3 Neg loses .3 || Both lose .1 or gain .3* || Neg loses .4 ||
 * Neg doesn't answer || Aff gets .2 || Aff loses .4 || No change ||
 * Both of you will give me a quick explanation of your rationale and then I will decide if both of you misunderstood something (-.1) or I just made a horrible decision (+.3).

Results
 * || Stanford || Berkeley ||
 * Both Right || 5 || 0 ||
 * One Right One Wrong || 3 || 2 ||
 * One Right || 1 || 0 ||
 * One Wrong || 1 || 0 ||
 * Both Wrong || 0 || 0 ||
 * No Players || 0 || 0 ||


 * Zero Prep Win -** Very simple. If you can win without using any prep the whole debate I'll give the 2A/N at least a 29.3. Can't use your own speech time to prep either


 * Half Prep Win** - If you win using less than half your prep I'll give the 2A/N at least a 28.5. Can't use your own speech time to prep either

" This basically means that at any point of the debate you believe you've solidly already won the debate, beyond a reasonable doubt, (dropped T argument, double turn, strategic miscue that is irreparable by the other team) you can invoke a TKO and immediately end the debate. If a team chooses this path and succeeds, I will give them __*+1 speaker points (from what I would have given at that point in the debate) each and an immediate win.*__ If the team chooses to invoke this but its unclear you've TKO'd the other team or in fact choose wrong, you obviously will lose and your points will be severely effected. Who dares to take the challenge?"
 * TKO** - This is policy only. Brian Manual does this and I like this idea so that I don't have to listen to debates that are obviously over from the start. However I vary on the speaker points because I don't think I should just dole out 30's because you hit a novice. Please be 100% sure. I'll quote,


 * Speed Win -** Now if you don't want to TKO I give you this option. If you can beat the other team in less than 25 seconds in the last rebuttal, __I will award you a 30__ with no punishment if you lose in your attempt. (The punishment is a higher chance of losing). However, you must invoke this before your 2AR/2NR and sacrifice your right to a 5 minute speech. This is here because 1. I want see this happen and 2. I want to see how efficient you are. I reserve the right to award lower than a 30 if I think you opponent is totally incompetent.


 * __Now in the instances where the TKO and Speed Win is applicable, you are probably crushing your opponent. However, remember__** __**to be kind and respectful to your opponent**__ __**. Getting shit on is not fun. If you are a total dick, I'll tank your speaks even if you are successful in your TKO or Speed Win. These incentives are not meant to humiliate your opponent, but to test your ability and debate IQ.**__

Boring Stuff

 * Evidence Scrutiny** - Most arguments are really contrived and really isn't all that well supported by the evidence. I really love when debaters point out what the other team's cards actually say. Cards that are usually exaggerated - politics cards, impact cards, link cards. Remember **a card that says x event could start a nuclear war does not equate to x event will start a nuclear war**. If you point that out it means that even if you concede the disad, they impact is not 100% probable.


 * Style things** - I don't care if you sit, stand, or lay down. It doesn't matter to me, but do note how you present your argument to me probably influences me subconsciously at an ethos level


 * Argument preference** - I enjoy watching any kind of debate as long as it's good. What has interested me lately is good performance/race debates. Ryan Wash is fun to watch. However, I probably might feel uncomfortable if you are reading some high-level baudrillard, but the good K debaters won't make me feel that way.


 * Topicality** - Good topicality debates are so good. Aff teams please note, reasonability is about how reasonable your **interpretation** is, not your we meet. I do think negs need to prove that their interpretation is more than just marginally better than the affs. Please don't say CI: only our aff is topical, that makes me cringe. I think topical version of the aff is a very strong argument. I also think good topicality debates should include a lot of cards other than the definition.


 * Kritiks -** I have no qualms judging them. If it's your thing, go for it. However the most debaters I've seen are really not very good at going for the K. I think that you need to interact with every advantage with the affirmative, otherwise I'm very compelled to vote on an advantage that is independent of the kritik.

Process CPs - Probably bad for debate or not competitive I-Fiat - Bad bad bad States - Bad bad bad Word pics - eh might be bad Pics - obviously good Floating piks - eh might be bad Conditionality - 1 k and 1cp probably good, anything more is bad bad bad Conditionality might even be better than dispositionality
 * Theory** - I wish affs would go for this more. I was a 2n in high school and was lazy and won way too many rounds by abusing the shit out of the aff and scaring them away from going for theory. If all the args for both sides are laid out vs each other, my predispositions

Now clearly I think a lot of things are bad, however negs do not be dissuaded from reading these args. Although I would love the aff to punish the neg for cheating I also love to see negs abuse the shit out of aff teams. I think reject the arg not the team is over-comable


 * Ptix DA** - I think the politics argument is one of the dumbest arguments in debate, but also one of the most strategic ones. I think the politics disad in the most conventional form is not intrinsic to the affirmative. It's just not. However, the time investment it takes to go for the intrinsicness argument effectively against politics is usually very large in the 1ar and many judges are not willing to vote on it. Anyway, if you can beat the politics argument on intrinsicness in the 2ar (assuming they answer it), I'll throw you a bone here I'll a**dd .5 speaker points from what I would have given you.**


 * Paperless teams -** I'd like a copy of your speech to reference before you give it. Also don't be shitty at paperless, will affect speaks.


 * Clipping Cards** **-** You need hard ev aka, **you need to record the speech. Bring it up in your speech. I might stop the debate there. If I agree, you will get 30's and the other team gets .1.** I will also judge the team that clipped cards and will also inform their coach. Clipping cards literally kills debate. The only exception is where the debate devolves into some nonsense like rules bad or something.


 * Making smart analytic takeouts to arguments with gaping holes is probably one of the best way to get higher speaker points in addition to the things above. Other than that be clear, aggressive but not rude, confident but not smug, and take advantage of mistakes.**


 * Also, debaters should observe a judges body language. I think in about 75% of debates its clear who's going to win just by their body language.**


 * Lastly, regardless of our differences in argument style, personality, race etc. we all have one thing in common and that's our love of the game. So treat each other with respect. We are all part of a single community.**

LD
I have little experience with LD. I judged the rehab topic at Blake and Stanford but that's it. I haven't judged much this year, LD or otherwise, so I will likely have a bit higher threshold for clarity. I will also have minimal experience with the topic.

Like you have probably read before, do what you do best. Even though my LD experience is minimal, arguments are still arguments. Make good ones and you'll win the debate.

Best LDer I've seen: Peninsula: Henry Zhang (29.4, +.1 DD)

__**More specific stuff**__

Presentation - I don't care if you sit, stand, or lay down. It doesn't matter to me, but do note how you present your argument to me probably influences me subconsciously at an ethos level. I will clear twice before I won't care anymore. Make tags clear. Like really clear. Like super clear and differentiated. I will like you more if you do this.

Pet Peeve: The question, "Do I win if I prove that if I prove my framework is better than yours and that my impacts outweigh yours and that your impacts have zero risk and that my impacts are probably and happen quizker?" or any variation of that. The answer you get is either obviously yes, or you'll get 15 seconds of awkwardly fumbling around. There are times where it may be appropriate to ask "What do I need to prove to win?" but 95% percent of the time I encounter the former

Theory - I'm not quite sure how theory is deployed in LD but if you have a claim warrant and an impact for your whining go for it. At least in policy I think negs get away with way too much and theory should be utilized more. The teams that deploy it should make arguments for a comp interp framework.

Teh K - I'm fine with judging criticisms if they are your thing.

Default - I will evaluate the debate in terms of competing worlds. This just makes the most sense to me. Make framing arguments and make them often. They can really get you far and/or make up for lost ground. Your arguments need to have a claim and some warrant backing it up. It doesn't have to be sound, but it needs to be valid.

CP's/DA's - Go for it. I was a policy debater and this is a more comfortable debate for me to judge.

I guess that's all I have to say for now.

Making smart analytic takeouts to arguments with gaping holes is probably one of the best way to get higher speaker points. Other than that be clear, aggressive but not rude, confident but not smug, and take advantage of mistakes.

Also, if you want hints on what you are doing right or wrong, look at my body language. You can tell a lot by a judges body language.