Last changed on
Wed April 10, 2024 at 8:47 AM EDT
Please include me on the email chain: aubssmith814@gmail.com
Hey everyone, I debated at James Madison University as a part of their policy debate program (2017-2021). I debated for 4 years, 2.5 of which was at the varsity level mostly as a 2N. I'm fairly new to judging so I can't give you too many pointers on how I've evaluated debates in the past, but I can tell you though that there are a couple of things I've noticed when I'm debated that could be helpful to you.
Experience: I'm mostly familiar with Ks, but I'm also open to a good DA and Framework debate too. Feel free to read whatever you're most comfortable with. I will be able to follow along with any argument as long as it has a clear explanation.
Speed/ Flowing: I have a hard time flowing online. It's partially a clarity issue and partially a hearing issue on my end, so please be sure that your mic is working correctly and that you are clear. I'd prefer it if everyone did a mic check before their speech just to make sure that I can hear them properly, but if not we can workshop ways to figure it out. Speed is much less of an issue for me, although if it is something like a Framework/ Topicality/VC (for LD) debate I would ask that you slow down.
Framework/Topicality/Parametrics: I've been in a lot of these debates, and am pretty flexible to whatever you want to say. One thing I would like to see in these debates is a meaningful, well-warranted impact. If you have pre-written blocks for these debates, bonus points for specificity. Too often as a debater I saw these framework arguments read without really engaging with the Aff, so if you are going to bring this into a debate (specifically against an Aff that is not the 'normal' policy Aff) please go beyond making it a cookie-cutter argument that you spend a < 1 minute on. Also, as a disclaimer, I'm not inclined to believe that fairness is the most important impact in a debate, but this has to be argued well within a debate for that to really matter to me.
CrossX- I flow CrossX as closely as I can. It's a speech(ish) in my mind, so you can also read cards during that time if it's relevant and can get you somewhere in the debate.
K Debate: Like I said above, I've focused a lot on Ks in my career, but I'm down for you to read other stuff as well. If you do go for a K, make sure that the link story is good and clear- I'm okay with voting on one link coming out of the 2nr as long as it is explained well. Alternatives also need to explain how they can resolve the Aff and links, although I'm flexible on how you say it solves. Debates are always better when there is more clash, so if you are purposefully vague about what the alt does coming out of the 2nc, I'm inclined to be skeptical of how it solves.
Policy Debate- Read whatever DAs work best for your strategy. Again, make sure your links are strong and that there is some impact calculus/ ethical framing as to how I should weigh my decision.
Tl;dr: Please be clear (and slow down if you're doing a T/FW arg). I'm flexible to hear whatever arguments you want to make in a round, but make sure links are explained well and that you have some way for me to frame my ballot at the top of the 2nr/2ar. Impact calc is a fine way to go for this, but if you have any other ethical framing arguments I'm down to vote for those too. Have fun debating :)
PS. Debate is an environment that can be hectic and frustrating at times and I understand that. That being said, try to be respectful and accommodating to your fellow competitors when possible i.e. disclose, provide trigger warnings when necessary, and send out blocks if requested.