Theory – I tend to think I lean a bit conservative on these type of issues

Valued Gateway Client

Informations

• Publié par: Nasheg
• Nombre de lectures: 10
• Langue: English

Extrait

David Magariel

University of Kansas

24 rounds judged on this topic

Generally

– I have not judged a ton of rounds on this topic. What does that mean for you? Probably not a

ton. I have been cutting cards for the topic here and there, and have decently kept up this year. If you want

some simple way to think of me maybe think of a pretty typical first year judge – who leans a bit

conservative on debate issues (not political ones). I can only promise one thing as a judge, and that is that I

will work hard to make the best decision I can. I try hard to decide the round based on the arguments and

analysis debaters make in the round. I will read evidence that I think is relevant to the decision to help me

resolve things that are in conflict during the debate. I have no definite presumptions but here are some

things I tend to favor:

Counterplans

– I am a bit mixed on my likes/dislikes of counterplans. I really enjoy listening to a specific

PIC that excludes some part of the plan and the net benefit is a disad that turns the case or something along

that line. However I think that the “agent” counterplan is usually pretty boring and not a great winning

strategy. Specific PICS – great. Generic PICS – boring. I generally think PICs are ok but also could be

persuaded to vote affirmative that they are illegit. Dispositionality could be easier to defend on the

negative in front of me than conditionality. Both are defensible either way. Theory questions should not

whine about time loss but should focus on how their view of the debate world has meant you lost some

SPECIFIC strategic benefit that is important. Failure to generate good, explained offensive warrants for

whatever theory you are defending/arguing against is asking to lose. Affirmatives should attempt to win

that the solvency deficit or disad to the counterplan outweighs the risk of the net benefit – negatives should

do the opposite.

Topicality

– Is a voting issue. I feel like these are evaluated on the basis of competing interpretations.

Some explanation of what ground your interpretation does or does not allow would be nice. I am rare in

that I don’t think I hate to hear a topicality debate. I think that questions of the rules of our game can be

interesting – but not that they automatically are interesting.

Disads

– Important part of the negative arsenal. I do not think that if you win the uniqueness you

automatically win a risk of your disad. If the affirmative wins a larger risk of their link turn and you hose

them on the uniqueness you still aren’t in a good place.

Critiques

– Similar to my view of counterplans. If you have a specific reason why the affirmatives

assumptions are flawed or whatever your indictment is I am often much more persuaded if it is specific to

something the affirmative has done in this debate. “The state is bad” is not very exciting. Something

specific to the case that turns the case or takes out the solvency, etc. is way better. I think this genre of

argumentation can be very interesting and enlightening IF explained well and used in a specific manner in

reference to something the affirmative has done in the debate. Affirmatives should focus on a permutation

and how that functions in relation to the negatives links, and implications. Affirmatives should also not let

their case fly out the window when facing this type of argument. You affirmative probably has some

relevance – explain it and how it relates to their criticism. I am also often disappointed by affirmatives

letting the negative get away with their alternative solving the case and global patriarchy (or whatever the

negative claims).

Things to do to win in front of me – Explain how you win in the 2NR/2AR. I would like to hear some

impact calculus, even if we lose X, Z outweighs, kinda overviews. If an argument is something that needs

to be explained please do so. I really hate debates where the negative or the affirmative has something

tricky but they just read a slew of cards and spend no time explaining how it turns the case, or the disad, or

whatever implication it has in the debate. Please read one less card and explain a bit how this argument

functions in the debate. I like it when people are confident about their arguments and can show some

personality/sarcasm in the debate. Being a jerk will get you nowhere – being a funny confident person will

get you good speaker points. Finally good luck and congratulations on being at the NDT.