Boyce,+Tucker

**__Background__** Sophomore (and actively debating) at the University of Georgia Alpharetta (GA) '13 - 4 years debate, TOC 2013

**__Rounds__** Varsity Rounds Judged, Latin America Topic: 45 Oceans Topic Rounds: 36 -- (including at the Emory and Northwestern camps). Pretty familiar with the topic. Constraints: Alpharetta HS, Cambridge HS

**The really quick version: You should read arguments you're most comfortable with and feel free to debate in whatever style you like, just do it well. Aff and strategy choice matter much less than the skills you use to execute arguments. Trickery and sketchiness are __never__ a replacement for good strategy and coherent argumentation, no matter what arguments you choose to read.**

**"Please have fun. Debate is good because we love it" - Maggie Berthiaume **

** Anything not covered or explained here? Ask me anything you need to before rounds, and/or email me whenever - tuckerboyce@gmail.com **

**Updated 1/2015**

**The quick version:** 1. __Be Nice__ - this is really important to me - high school debate is a community because of the great people in it, and you should reflect that in how you carry yourself in and outside of debates. Being slightly aggressive about arguments and in CX is fine, there's a line. 2. __Debate how you want to debate__ - it doesn't matter what the arguments are, what matters is how you frame them and explain them. As a judge I believe my job is to evaluate the arguments debaters would like to discuss. I try to be as clean-slate as possible, with some specific preferences discussed below. 3. __Framing is key__ - creative and concise 2NR/2AR framings will be rewarded. Clear explanations and comparisons are necessary. The best rebuttals go beyond simple impact calc and form a more cohesive strategic approach. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">4. __Explanation is often more important than what the card says__ - what matters is how you explain it and compare the evidence. I'm less likely to call for cards if the 2NR/2AR explanation is just a tag. If I deem that evidence does need to be called, then I'm going to give more weight to the arguments actually made during the speech on that particular part of the debate. I'm not a fan of calling up tons of evidence and reading into it more than was done in the speeches. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">5. __Be interesting__ - I believe the best debaters have developed a sense of what they're good at, no matter what that is, and use it to their advantage. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">6. __Flashing__ - I won't take prep for flashing, but please be reasonable.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">**Marking Evidence:** <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">If you mark a card during a speech, you need to __physically mark it__ in the document. You should have a marked version available if the opponent requests.If I call up evidence, please __check to see that you have marked it appropriately in the document you give to me__. If I end up calling up a card and have written on my flow that it was marked, and you did not mark it, I will subtract speaker points from the speaker who read the card.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">**DA:** <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">- Always a fan. A good agenda politics throwdown is one of my favorite types of rounds (if it's good at the tournament), but if that's not your thing, that's fine too. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">- Clear impact comparison, DA interaction with the case, and 'link controls' or 'uniqueness controls' all should be explained in the context of the round and not generically- Ideal Neg blocks should indict 2AC evidence on multiple levels <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">- I prefer the impact calc/overview at the top of the flow. I don't think the trend of doing it elsewhere is good for the structure of debating. You should answer the impact defense on the line by line as normal.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">**CP:** <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">- Well-written and specific CP's are great. The more theoretically questionable the CP is, the better the solvency advocate should be. Affs should utilize theory against CP's that do the whole Aff with specific abuse claims. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">- Explain what sufficiency vs. necessary framing etc. are in the context of the round. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">- I will not "Judge-Kick" the Counterplan for the Negative unless: <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">A.) It is specifically said and justified - but that does not mean saying "you can kick this if you don't like it" <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">B.) There is comparative impact analysis on this question of the debate

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">**K:** <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">- I'm relatively familiar with a range of K's - specific link work is a must, and it's great if you could link cards in the 1AC or specific actions of the Aff within the K. You should contextualize your more generic arguments to the Affirmative to get a better explanation. I'm not as familiar with Baudrillard and post-modernism arguments so those will need more explanation. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">- Framing is really important here - don't just go for a bunch of tricks, tell me what they all mean in context of the Aff.- On the Aff, it is important to think of the broader 2AR strategy vs. the K rather than a collection of loosely connected arguments. I find that often the 1AR extends many arguments without development rather than developing a cohesive 2AR set-up - this can be changed by planning the overall strategy vs. the K before the 1AR even starts.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">**Case:** __Love__ well-developed case debates.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">The Neg increasingly just reads impact defense now. It's so much more than that - multiple levels of defense, indicts of 1AC evidence, re-reading of their evidence, and recent evidence will be rewarded. I will reward Neg blocks that spend a lot of time on case defense. 1AR's should collapse down in these scenarios to extend and explain their best offense. Affs that are able to articulate cohesive warrants in response to impact defense arguments. The Aff should use CX to point out the generic nature of their arguments if the Neg is just reading impact defense.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">**Non-Traditional Arguments:** <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">- Fine with all of them, although if I had a favorite type of these, it's Affs that have a stronger connection to oceans/ocean policy/the topic broadly. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">- Comparisons are key, couching your arguments in the method and framing of your opponent's. The role of the ballot and the impacts need to be explained in context of the debate. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">- Even though I'm familiar with many of these arguments, I am not well-versed in the books and literature on many of these topics, so explanation of more complex arguments is important. As long as the explanation is clear and complex topics are explained sufficiently, it is fine.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"> **T:** <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">- Evidence comparison and precision arguments are under-utilized <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">- The Aff should have unique offense and try to provide examples of various Affs that do and don't fit their interp. 1AR/2AR has to isolate that offense and impact it. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">- Well-impacted rebuttals are key, including comparison of offense and not just generic "limits! fairness!" discussion

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">**Framework:** <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">**-** Again, I'm fine with anything executed well. I judge framework debates based on technical arguments and framing that happened in the debate. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">- Is framework a viable 2NR in front of me? Yes, definitely, as long as you debate it well (just like anything else). Is going for impact turns vs. framework on the Aff viable? Yes, of course. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">- Aff-specific: Clear impact calculus and interaction of arguments with the content of the Affirmative vs. Framework is also important, especially when going for "Aff outweighs" style of arguments <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">- Neg-specific: Generic block-reading is not persuasive; framework should be contextualized to the specifics of the Aff, and you should use clear examples, grounding impact claims with anticipation of the Aff's final offense.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">**Theory:** <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">- There needs to be a clear impact and abuse story if it's an issue to reject the team. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">- Perm theory and blippy 2AC arguments probably aren't reasons to reject the team, but could be argued as such hypothetically with an abuse story <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">.- In order for it to be an argument, it must have a warrant when it is introduced. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">- Even though I love the Politics DA, well-developed politics theory debating by the Aff is viable <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">- Condo needs to be well-warranted in the 1AR to set up 2AR offense properly, otherwise I'm likely to dismiss brand new arguments.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">**Points:** Obviously good execution of arguments/impact calculus/structure are most important for speaks. Other things are also important, like being nice, having a unique style, executing one area of argumentation particularly well, etc. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">Unnecessary trickery and sketchiness in argumentation, whether it's spiking out of offense that actually links, excessive blippy theory arguments, etc. will negatively effect points. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">If you think you flowed well, __show me your flows__ once the 2AR ends, and if I agree, __I'll add up to .3 speaker points__. Obviously the 1N doesn't need a flow of the 2NC and stuff like that.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">__Scale__ <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">26-27.5 = large errors or need for improvement in most areas <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">27.6-28 = alright overall, but consistent errors in certain areas <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">28.2 = About average for me calculating speaks I gave in varsity last year <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">28.1-28.3 = good debating but little excellent moments and some small errors. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">28.4-28.5 = overall solid, good moments, close to breaking normally <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">28.6-29 = great debating with some moments of excellent style/etc, probably a team that can break at the tournament <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">29-29.3 = very impressive speeches deserving of a speaker award in a Quarters Bid quality pool. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">29.4-29.5 = best or one of the best speeches I'll hear in a season <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">29.6-30 = near perfection <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">I will assign a 0 for a debater proven to be clipping cards or in violation of some other ethics rule. If you believe that your opponent has clipped evidence, you need to provide me with a recording of the speech for review. The debate will be stopped, and it is all-or-nothing because it is a serious ethics challenge. If needed, consultation with the tab room for specific tournament rules will take place, but there must be a recording.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">**Ocean Topic Thoughts** <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">- I will enjoy well-debated Arctic arguments and will probably talk to you in-depth about it in the post-round. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">- T debates, especially with T-Seabed, should isolate more unique offense to both sides. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">- International CP debates should include more analysis and specificity on what type of options and tech countries have. Simply saying "extend that Japanese tech fails" isn't the best.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">**CX** <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">I often flow CX to record finer details and distinctions with certain types of arguments. Please use time asking focused, narrow strategic questions rather than just a list of "point me a line..." kind of questions.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">**Things you should never say:**- <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">“If you make that argument in your speech we’ll answer it.” – just answer the question <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">- “You should call this up!” and all variations of that – explain the evidence; I'll call evidence up if needed but you don't need to tell me <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">- "Why should the judge vote aff" in 1AC CX - confusion/generic <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">- "We'll win this...." - explain why- "Perm do the plan and the non-mutually exclusive parts of the Alt" - this does not mean anything unless you permute a specific part of the Alt. In fact, this perm actually is literally the definition of a perm, at which point saying "Perm Perm!" would be the same. It's the equivalent of saying "No Link - the link to the DA is not a link".

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">**Things you should never do:** <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">- Be mean to your partner, the other team, people in general, etc. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">- Mis-pronounce "Boehner" haha <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">- Waive CX <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">- Indicate that you're not confident in your partner - always support them! <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">- Lie about something in CX - if you're genuinely unsure about something, just ask me and I'll nod or something - that's way better than saying you didn't read a theory argument when you did. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">- Make distasteful jokes. Jokes are really cool, but there's a line.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">**Good luck!**