David,+Adam

Adam David Northside '15 University of Chicago '19


 * FOR NILES**: This is my first time judging varsity debate. My knowledge on the surveillance topic isn't huge but I have read files put out by various camps.

__Background:__ I debated as a 2N for 3 years at Northside College Prep & went to the TOC my senior year. I was policy on the aff, and I went for a variety of arguments on the neg, but mostly went for Ks my senior year, my favorite of which was Lacan.

__Some basic stuff:__ - tech > truth / flow-oriented - read what you're best at. - a dropped argument is a true argument but it has to be explained/warranted. - slow down on plan/cp texts & explain args related to the topic. my knowledge on the topic isn't huge. - i reject new arguments, but only if the other team points it out. - being assertive is good, but don't cross the line. show respect to the other team & help create a friendly, accepting environment. - if you or others describe your argument style as "trolling," i am the wrong judge for you.

__Specific argument stuff:__

Personally, my favorites types of affs are policy affs that focus on structural violence & challenge traditional risk assessment.
 * Aff/Case**: Know your aff well. That's all I can really say. I think people often get away with making blippy arguments in the 2AC and 1AR.


 * T**: I default to competing interpretations, but reasonability is definitely winnable. I don't have enough experience on the topic yet to develop specific opinions on this, but T is a valuable, educational debate to have. Caselists are really important. I generally think fairness impacts come first.


 * Theory**: I'm willing to vote on it if it is logically extended & developed throughout the debate. I prefer that, if you go for theory, it be all you go for in the final speech, unless the other team really screwed up and you can afford to extend theory and substance. I'm easily convinced that aff-stealing counterplans are abusive. 2 conditional advocacies are generally fine but anything more than that is pushing it. Please, for the sake of my mental well-being, slow down on your theory blocks.


 * DAs/Impact turns:** Obviously fine. Well-researched, case-specific disads make for some of the most interesting debates, but I understand that not every team has the time or resources to do that. Most of the politics DAs I saw last year were stupid & contrived, and I'm sure many more this year will be, but that's just my opinion. Top-level impact calc/turns case analysis is crucial. Huge fan of impact turn debates, especially heg good/bad.


 * CPs**: Big fan of advantage CPs & PICs. Not a fan of process CPs, word PICs, or international CPs. I think theory arguments are usually reasons to reject the CP and not the team, but can be persuaded otherwise. Not sure what else to say.


 * Ks**: Go for it. I'm a big fan of vanilla Ks like Neolib & Security when explained well. High-theory stuff like Baudrillard, D&G, etc. is a tougher sell. If you like going for that stuff, you have to be damn good at explaining it without using a ton of jargon. Identity Ks like Afropessimism are fine. but keep in mind that I'm not well-versed in that literature either. I'm often willing to pull the trigger on dropped K tricks. Specific link analysis and referencing the aff's evidence goes a long way, otherwise I can be easily swayed to vote on the perm. I can be very sympathetic to the aff on framework when the alternative is not explained well. This doesn't mean the alt has to be a policy, but I need explanation beyond "rejecting their discourse." Why is it necessary to focus on discourse first? Why should I not prefer the aff's specific internal links? etc.


 * Performance/Non-traditional**: I feel like this is where a lot of people make their decisions on how to pref their judges. While I am open to these arguments and ultimately go by the flow, I am very sympathetic to the negative on the framework debate. You have to do a really good job explaining to me why debate is the proper site for your project. Method debates can be interesting, but I think a lot of these affs are purposely vague and incontestable, and when the negative goes for a K instead of framework, the aff usually easily wins on the permutation. In short, read whatever you want, but don't think that you should win because you talked about something important before the negative did.

__Extra notes:__ - flashing doesn't count as prep, but if you take too long it will. - numbered warrants & being organized in general will get you higher speaker points. - i'm bad at keeping a straight face during the debate. don't takes my cringes and/or laughter personally.

Good luck, and have fun! My email, if you have any questions: ardavid3@gmail.com