Last changed on
Wed September 18, 2024 at 12:17 PM MDT
"The subversive intellectual enjoys the ride
and wants it to be faster and wilder;
she does not want a room of his or her own,
she wants to be in the world, in the world with others
and making the world anew."
-Jack Halberstam, The Wild Beyond: With and For the Undercommons
Hey y'all
Great to meet ya. I'm new to the NDT/CEDA community but have a background in other debate forms from various technical styles including LD and NPDA. I love new ideas and I love clash and comparative. I start my evaluation of each round top-down by asking how I should evaluate the debate/what impact is most important. From there, I evaluate the different ways each team accesses said impacts and compare their scenarios. The easiest way to get my ballot is to have a well-explained link with clear weighing.
Because I'm new to Policy, it'd be a good idea to give me explicit judge direction and explain yourself more than you are used to on norms. For example, a condo shell with five buzzwords lined up with no explanation will potentially have a lot less meaning to me than other judges. On the plus side, I'm not listening for specific scripts so if you want to respond to something uniquely especially, I listen intently.
While like most judges, I will vote for an argument if it's clearly won and will listen to explicit judge direction, but here's an FAQ list for how I tend to lean by default on different controversial issues in the community:
Tech -----x-------------- Truth
Good Analytic --x----------------- Bad Card
New ideas ------x---------------- Prewritten arguments I've heard 1000 times
Conditionality, I lean Aff and will be sympathetic to time skew arguments the more conditional worlds proliferate. That being said, if you win the condo debate, you win it and I will do my best to evaluate it fairly (see theory for more). I define dispositionality as "if there is exclusive offense on the shell, the Neg can't kick it." If you have a different definition, it'd be smart to communicate that sometime during the round.
On sneakier Counterplans like Consult, Process, Actor, Delay; it would help a lot to have direct solvency advocates for me to buy these as legitimate. At bare minimum, I need an explanation of how they are functionally competitive. 50 state CP means that the Aff is fiating 50 actors, is that fair or educational? If no one runs theory, then I'll take it for granted but I'd encourage your opponents to go for it.
Perms are advocacies. While they are a test of competition, I don't default to perms as a point of terminal defense but an explanation of what the world with both the Plan and Counterplan would look like. If the Counterplan isn't at all competitive then the world is only better off, however, even if there is functional tradeoffs to the Perm, I could be convinced the net benefits outweigh. This means I would like it if 1AR and 2AR extensions of the perm fleshed out what the world of the perm would look like and how it resolves the net benefits of the CP or alt if that's a relevant convo for the ballot. Theory telling me to evaluate CPs. as tests of competition will change my paradigm if uncontested but I think it's good to list my default position.
I will not judge kick a CP for you unless there is explicit theory telling me otherwise (as in interp with standards/voters). 2AR and 2NR collapses need to pick an advocacy and tell me why that is better. Same thing with the Aff, you get either the plan or a perm, not both. Your job in the last speech isn't to show how you've won the debate via a thousands cuts, but to synthesize all the elements in the debate and give me a clear story of why I should vote for you.
Kritiks:
Generally, I love critical analysis. Like most things, I prefer specific judge direction and comparison.
I need something to give me uniqueness usually an alternative. Alternatives can be as simple as a re-orientation or be full counterplans, but if I buy they have questionable solvency, your kritik impacts become non-unique really fast. I think in some ways, judges let alternatives get away with murder when I think alternative solvency should be a serious consideration when it comes time to vote.
Ideally, framework just tells me how to evaluate the round and contextualizes the links and alt to let me know what level I am evaluating these on (pre-fiat discourse, policymaking, knowledge frames, etc.). I love framework that actually gives fair opportunity to both sides and just lets me know how to compare a plan text to a re-orientation alternative. I dislike I-win statements that get introduced in the 2NC just in case the Neg want to kick the alt. Kicking the alt can be a winning strategy but I would encourage the Aff to point out that if there's no solvent alternative to capitalism than producing anti-capitalist knowledge frames probably doesn't have the planet-saving potential the Neg claims.
That being said, I believe in systemic causality way more than brinks and love root-cause argumentation. However, Serial policy failure means nothing unless contextualized to this Aff's policy (an analytic explaining would do).
Links should be specific and compelling. The more generic or nonspecific the link, the more convinced I am that a perm is net-beneficial (remember I default to perms as advocacies). A link of omission unless under very specific circumstances is simply not a link. Framework will also majorly affect how seriously I take your link. If I buy material proximal causes are what I should care about, rhetoric becomes a lot harder to justify as important. This is also why the Aff arguing there's a different root cause to an ideology that the Neg doesn't solve can go a long way in applying defense to the link and alt.
For the Affirmative on kritiks, specificity applies as well. If the Neg's position is that capitalism creates a harmful ontology, I don't want to hear about how capitalism has been good historically for material luxuries. I think kritiks can have this weird mystical aura where we just assume the Aff now has the burden of defending all of capitalism but that's often not the case. The more specific the defense of your plan, the more I'm likely to buy it.
For those wondering my knowledge base. I am familiar with identity literature (black radical tradition and performance studies particularly) as well as most classic French Theory like D&G, Derrida, or Baudrillard. That being said, most critical arguments are often very different in academia/reality than what they are in the debate context (Baudrillard and Tuck&Yang are particularly egregious examples I've noticed), so just assume I don't understand your reading of your critical author and explain it to me like I'm five.
Critical Affirmatives:
Warning I am interventionist in resolving Independent Voter Issues (see below for details)
I despise what's become known as the clash of civilization. I think there is value to exploring the stories of the topic. I've always thought that the scope of the topic being defined as the USFG is dumb. However, I think a limitless topic is harmful to clash. The way I currently see it, debates are storytelling and topics are genres. The farther away from the genre your story is, the harder it is for me to learn about the genre or to see clash with opposing stories. The less germane to the topic you are, the easier it is for the Neg to convince me that clash and literature education have been lost.
If you are a T-USFG team that reads the same scripts about predictability and fairness with no contextualization or comparison to the Aff than I am a probably a bad judge for you.
If you are a critical team that relies upon independent voter issues on how other teams are responding in the 1NC with no contextualization to your advocacy statement than I am probably a bad judge for you.
However, if you are a T-USFG team that comes prepared with a TVA (topical version of the Affirmative) or an articulation of why a more restrictive understanding of the resolution is best for debate or its participants in a way that's comparative to the Aff's impacts than I'm a great judge for you. I don't want to be left with a situation where I have to decide whether accessing radical research or advocacies is more important than predictability, if this is the situation I will likely lean Aff but if you give me a way to weigh clash against alternative epistemologies than I'll defer to the weighing in the round. Just remember that material death is different than social death when designing the TVA.
I believe judges have to take t-usfg framework seriously so as to have predictable core generic for the negative. Therefore, neither team should expect me to do the heavy lifting for them in the framework debate. Do not imply impacts, make them explicit and compare them!
Fairness is not a voter unless fleshed out. I'm unsure what fairness looks like in debate. By design it is an asymmetric game and in some ways, the different positions people find themselves in is very cool and educational. My worst fear for debate is becoming replaceable with AI that autogenerates cases. We are all different humans, with different styles, brains, and perspectives. I want to hear what is interesting to you.
For the Aff, Framework for Clash is awesome. Providing a debate framework that still allows Neg clash and good educational debate to happen will start to evaporate the Neg's offense. Being able to provide Neg ground for engagement will do wonders for both speaks and overcoming ground and predictability standards.
Outside of framework, I would love Neg clash on the core of the 1AC. There's a lot of literature out there and a well-put together negative strategy on a critical affirmative would be at the very least rewarded with high speaks and seems like a much better way to win as well. Attack their assumptions, attack their methods, provide counter-advocacies. Tell me an alternative story.
To evaluate these debates, I compare offense and whether the 1AC advocacy is net better or worse for the world. Usually the impacts (such as harmful ideologies) are attached to the squo which means solvency is important for both sides (solvency can take many forms beyond traditional policymaking including discourse, affect, debate community impacts, etc) . This doesn't mean the 1AC advocacy has the burden of solving all of white supremacy to gain offense (discourse is probably a linear impact scenario), however, it does mean that I need a specific analysis of what the harm is and what the 1AC advocacy does to solve them. For example, if whiteness is actually constructed top-down by political economic structures, then poetry probably doesn't do anything to solve those harms.
Attached to this, if you choose to read an argument in debate, you've invited others to clash. The Aff chooses the conversation and have invited the Neg. I dislike the idea that 1ACs or certain parts of 1ACs are too personal to be involved in the debate. If that's the case, please save yourself the trauma and leave that out of the speech.
"No perms in a methods debate" doesn't intuitively make sense to me with the caveat that I think that 1ACs should be bounded to their assumptions. If the Aff assumes social death is caused by libidinal investment in institutions, it feels weird that their advocacy would shift to include institutions without in some way having different solvency. Tl;dr I need an articulation from the Negative why one method of activism would trade-off with another.
I am interventionist on Independent voter issues and I judge based on good faith attempts. If you are a team that relies on independent voter issues against the Neg's clash in the debate rather than on articulating your affirmative harms and solvency than I am probably not the best judge for you. Obviously if a Neg team really goes for oppression/dehumanization good or openly racist tropes I will stop the round, but negating the 1AC in a way the Aff didn't expect/want is not constitutive of a procedural issue. I'd prefer to deal with micro-aggressions w/o the ballot, if a team is actually attempting to do harm in the round than that's a debate safety issue and we should probably stop the round, if it's based on ignorance I would honestly prefer to just stop the debate for a minute, explain the micro-aggression and suggest an alternative way for the team to articulate what they mean rather than make it a procedural debate for the rest of the round. I won't always have the keenest eye and could be ignorant myself, so if there is an issue bothering you that you'd like to address, wait until the speech is over than just mention you'd like it if an argument was made in a more equitable way. We're all learners here and each of us deserve safety in the debate space without the weird competitive side getting in the way.
If you care, in the 2013 NDT Finals, I'd have voted for Emporia SW over Northwestern LV (not that anyone would ever ask me to judge a round when I was in Middle School). That's just how I fall as a judge in the way I currently see debate and I'm down to discuss debate history with you after the round.
Theory
I evaluate theory under an offense/defense paradigm. Standards are links, voters are impacts, and your interp is the uniqueness. I think there is a tendency of judges to not vote based on the flow and instead glaze their eyes over as if theory is just an invitation to listen to mechanical dialogue then vote up their personal favorite speaker. Though it may get messy, I will do my best to evaluate each theory shell as it's own flow.
Also theory is more organized way of making a traditional rhetorical argument around what should be allowed in debate which means I don't necessarily need someone to articulate the debate norm that's been violated as an "interp." For novice rounds, rhetorical substitutes such as "abuse" do just fine as long as I can trace your argument to a rule, a violation, and an impact to that violation.
"We Meets" are terminal defense as it renders the impact (voter) nonunique. I am tired of teams not taking the argument seriously and judges letting debaters get away with some of the worst interpretations I have ever seen. If your opponent is arguably topical within your interpretation, I find it hard to take your voters rhetoric seriously. If you are going to run theory in front of me please have a specific interpretation and violation. As for the Aff, if you want to be clever with the We Meet arguments then please do so. To me the violation is the most important part of the t-shell and I wish teams reprioritized it. IT IS A VOTING ISSUE! Expect me to take your interpretation and violation seriously. That part of the flow is my starting question for every theory debate.