Gunsolus,+Mitsu

Gonzaga University 2014 Bellingham HS 2010


 * I vote on arguments you win on. Give me a framework for how you want me to evaluate your arguments and I'll use that, but if you don't do this I'll default to a policy-making framework that evaluates arguments through an offense defense paradigm. Alternatively, if you read a k versus a policy aff, make sure you give me a reason why your impacts come first, otherwise I'm left evaluating whether ontology comes before nuclear war. Same goes for policy teams- make me do as little impact comparison as possible - that's your job.

K affs/performance: Framework can be compelling against affs without plan texts (especially if they don't even read an advocacy statement), especially if the aff is used to get out of core arguments you should probably be able to make on the neg. That being said, I think there's a lot to say for the soft-left k aff in high school (i.e. one with a plan text but with nv2lish impacts). Make sure you know what you're talking about, though (see my comments on kritiks below). Just because you read philosophy doesn't mean you don't have to debate like a normal person - i still want organized, roadmapped speeches with line by line (if you don't, my flow will be messy and likely arguments will fall between the cracks).

Disads: good, but affs should be critical of the neg evidence - i'd like to avoid calling for evidence at the end of the round (unless it has been called into question), so again, do this work for me. Neg, make sure to make reasons why this outweighs and/or turns the aff.

Counterplans: make sure they're competitive (though i won't vote on that if the aff doesn't say it, it'll just reflect poorly on your speaker points). Make sure it solves the aff. Make sure the cp doesn't link to the n/b. If you use your head, i'm happy.

Kritiks: Like 'em, just MAKE SURE YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. Nothing makes me more unhappy than a k debater that doesn't know their business, which is 99% of all high-schoolers. If you're reading crazy shna, make sure you've actually read the articles and understand where the author's coming from. It irritates me to no end when people read a hodgepodge of theory and pretend like it's a coherent argument - if it's not it'll be blatantly obvious and make for a terrible debate. That being said, if you actually understand it, then by all means, go for it. Also, again, make sure you give me a way to evaluate your impacts v. policy impacts.

T: Usually a voter, pre-requisite to other arguments (Except theory - that's debatable). If it's a bad t, again, it will probably reflect on your speaks. I will probably never vote on ASPEC unless there's actual in round abuse (i.e. the aff moves from a congress aff to a courts aff in the 2ac). Same goes for substantially=without material qualifications or any other T file that is not grounded in the topic - for instance i'd love to see a T debate that requires some discussion of the topic.

Turns: I love me a good turn. Impact turning advantages or DA's will make me smile as long as you do it right. Do. not. double. turn. yourself. Speed's fine as long as you're clear (i'll yell at you), tag team is fine, i don't care how you dress, vocal inflection is nice (this is a speech event after all, show some emotion), ditto with eye contact. Be assertive, get passionate, but don't be a jerk. Be funny, be a little sassy, make it fun for me to watch but also make it fun for your opponents. Mean people suck. If you use debaterisms ("at the point at which," "this evidence is on fire," at any point address me as "judge" or use the phrase "in this debate") your speakers points will start ticking away rapidly.

One more caveat: while I have judged some rounds on this topic, I am still not that familiar with the literature. Please explain acronyms specific to the topic, etc. Basically it's your debate. It would behoove you to put time, effort and thought into your arguments beforehand, because we can all tell when you haven't. And have fun, it's why we're all here. ||