he/him

sme '26

tech > truth

ground rules: don't be discriminatory (racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.) the second i see you doing this, i give the win to the other team. also, be nice(ish), we're all here spending our saturdays reading random stuff off of a computer.

preferences

speed- as long as it's understandable and i can flow it, its ok. if i can't understand you, i'm going to 'yell' clear, and if you don't slow down, then its a loss on speaks.

args- fine w/ basically anything. default to competing interps on T, reasonability is an uphill battle in 90% of the cases. you need to debate case well if you want my ballot. please go for solvency deficits, turns, etc. argue textual and functional comp. on counterplans. not a fan of perf con. kritikal debates are weird and i like them (if you know what you're talking about).

misc.- don't go, "is everyone ready? judge? opponents? ok, starting in 3, 2, 1". start the speech, and we'll tell you if we aren't ready. phone timers are fine. don't read more than 5 off. its annoying, and as a 2a, i despise it. one off and case debating can win you a debate. the role of the neg is not to confuse, it is to disprove, aka i am lenient on 2acs if more than 5 off are run.

good luck!

Hi! I'm a fourth year debater at SME, and I mainly debate national circuit

Pronouns she/her

Pls add me to the chain - leonard.sophia.103@gmail.com

My debate philosophy is mainly influenced by Jwilk, Grayson Weber, and Trey Witt

TL:DR

I am chill with whatever you want to read as long as you clash

Mich update

my judging philosophy is comprable to the quote by joe biden- "In the good old days when I was a senator, I was my own man."

TRUTH OVER TECH!!!! da links must be to the plan text, but k links can be to squo and terminally nonuq

pls turing test!!!! there is an epidemic of robots in this activity :(((( ill send u the file

average speaks are 28.5 on a sliding scale -

lose speaks (-.1) by being annoying, if i have to clear you (after 2 clears you get a 20), having a computer with a screen over 12 inches (or double monitors), not preempting aspec in the 1ac, or your name starts with a J and you're a gemeni

*Note - if your name is Jaxson, Jackson, Jaxon, or any iteration you immediately get the L + 1 speaker point + report to tabroom

gain speaks (+.1) by reading your plan as if you were a kansan performing a dramatic interp, making a joke, bringing me a snack (if its an energy drink auto 30), starting your final rebuttal with the hail mary, and +.2 if you hide aspec (aff or neg) (jk) (maybe not)

i feel uncomfortable adjudicating any arguments about patents

General Notes

• racism, sexism, homophobia, violence is an auto loss
• Tech over truth
• If you have an accommodation request pls ask with me present - debate is your space and I want everyone to feel comfortable in it but I feel weird judging an accommodation violation argument if I didn't know there was one
• Ok with speed if you're clear
• I like open cross but prep before cross-ex will steal your speaker points
• A debate without good clash is lame. Card dumping is boring
• If you make me laugh I might boost your speaks :)
• Please don't pack up during the 2AR, it stresses me out
• I don't specifically function on a policy making paradigm, it's your job to tell me how to evaluate the round. I think debate is probably a game but not necessarily
• I don't want to judge intervene so pls frame your arguments in final rebuttals
• RVIS ARE NOT REAL
• #Bringbackwarrants2024 - extending the tag of evidence isn't compelling

AFF: whatever floats your boat, but if you’re running a k aff please make it accessible: I'm not always super familiar with the lit.

For the neg: only reading case defense is boring. Read no solvency, offense, case turns etc

For the aff: A really defensive 2ar is never a great idea and leans towards a presumptive ballot. Take advantage of the last speech because framing arguments are really compelling

T: I HATE ADJUDICATING T. If you decide to disregard this and go for T it better be at least the majority of the 2nr. I default to competing interps even if they're silly

K: I've read militarism and cap so I'm relatively familiar with those lit bases, as well as set col, security, pess, but don't assume I'm super familiar.

Fairness is only an internal link if you say it is :)

2nr's I find compelling are 1) Framework and link analysis or 2) links and alt especially with real analysis on causal solvency

I really love when teams impact turn one another's framework or do impact calc on FW

DA’s: Idk I'm not picky on DAs, but I do love smart impact framing arguments in the rebuttals - mitigation or prerequisite arguments are underrated. I think politics or elections on this topic is squirrely at best

CP’s: go for it but just know I’m not great for a competition debate or condo debate - I think 2nc counterplans are devious but do your thing i suppose

Theory:I'm ok for it, I like creative theory. If you wanna go for severance perms bad I would rock w that. If you hide aspec from your opponents you might accidentally hide it from me too tho

Impact Turns:the best strat in the game

Hayden '22

KU '26

Add me to the email chain:

Smcconnell.debate@gmail.com

TLDR: I've gone for a mix of policy and critical arguments. I don't have preferences about what you read. Just do what you do well.

Speed is fine---Slow down for analytics and give some pen time

Unique strategies and in-depth explanation = Increased Speaks

Tech>Truth, but truth is a tiebreaker

Impact calc is good

LD/PF Note:

I did LD a few times in high school, but don't know too much about the event.

I've never done or judged PF, but know the basic structure.

This means I don't really have any preconceived notions about these events, so you have to explain how I evaluate certain arguments in the round.

Just debate your best and I will try to adjudicate the debate my best.

If you have any questions just ask!

I prefer speech drop. My email filter is likely to screen out unfamiliar email addresses.

I am a former high school debater and practicing attorney. While I am a detailed flow, my pen-speed is unlikely to be able to keep up with national circuit top-tier speed. I recommend that the fastest debaters slow down to about a six on a ten-point speed scale. If I can't hear the argument, I won't flow it, even if it’s on the speech doc. Some debaters tend to ignore this request and spread at uncomfortable levels for me. I encourage you not to do so.

Substantively, there are no absolute deal-breakers for me, but I do have some commitments from which I will depart only if compelled to do so by persuasive or unrefuted argument: cases should be topical (unless you present compelling reasons why they need not be); teams should engage in productive clash; and debaters must operate in good faith. If I'm not successfully placed in a paradigm in-round, I will default to a hybrid policy-maker/rules framework. Aff must present a prima facie case in 1AC. I'll vote on T--readily--but neg must understand their argument and win the battle on definition/interp. Note that I tend to view T as a prima facie obligation. Aff, you should know that this means I tend to view it as a priori/jurisdictional, so if Neg wins the battle on this issue, i don't evaluate the rest of the Aff. Otherwise, I will assess the round as a test of policy. Does case identify a problem that needs to be solved? Does the plan solve for it? Does it do so without disadvantages that outweigh its advantages? In other words, the old-timey stock issues matter to me (unless you convince me they shouldn't). Clash = good; analysis = good; impact calculus = critical. Also, I really appreciate a good case debate--too few negs challenge case.

Tech stuff: If the debate descends into a tech fight, then you're going to have to slow way down and explain why I should vote for you. I also tend to be a dinosaur on "offense and defense" nuances. For example, I believe neg can win on defense alone, so if your arguments descend into "no offense, they lose" claims, I may not fully follow you and you may be disappointed in the ballot. Explanation and analysis > jargon and "gotcha."

Counterplans. I would prefer to see a debate focused on a topical plan. If you choose to read a CP, I'll entertain the argument, but will listen to Aff's perm claims and expect you to clash on that point. Note that I believe counterplans must be non-topical. I also won't go looking for the net-benefit (or mutual exclusivity); Neg must explain this to me in detail.

Kritik. I prefer clash on policy issues over attacks at the level of worldview or axiom, but its your round, and I understand that Kritik has some value in training high school students to analyze at the meta-level. So I'll hear you out (provided you explain the lit), but I'll also entertain counter-arguments with equal and perhaps more earnest ears. If you choose to read a K, you must explain it in detail and offer a clear, and compelling, Alt. I disfavor K Affs; I believe your job as the affirmative is to represent the resolution. K advocates must win on role-of-the-judge/rule-of-the-ballot; I'm sufficiently self-aware to know that, as a default policy guy, that's hard to do with me.

shawnee mission east '25

she/her

lucy.pace@icloud.com

general thoughts

tech>truth. do what you want. go fast if you can be clear. i flow on paper so slow down on theory, perms, and framework. i want to see novice debates that have clear extensions of arguments and i want to see debaters that are funny and demonstrate that they have thought about their arguments.

aff---do what you want. i have read exclusively big stick policy affs in high school.

da---generic links or specific idc. affs should impact turn das more often

cp---i lean aff on delay and consult and am probably neg leaning on other stuff? idk. condo is good until its not

k---i've 'read' cap, set col, militarism, and fem ir. i was the 1n in most of these debates so don't assume i have a perfect understanding of the literature. i do not feel good in my ability to judge pomo or other high theory ks.

t---meh

other---impact turns are good. be nice and be funny for high speaks. for novices, my average for speaks is probably about a 28.5 ngl. if you send analytics ill give you higher speaks!

final---my opinions of debate have been shaped primarily by my coaches jacob wilkus and owen williams so if this is too short read their paradigms and that is the ideal judge i would want to be! and yes chris pace is my dad

email: jaxterreros@gmail.com

*I have ADHD - I lose my attention - please gather it by screaming the campfire song by Spongebob*

Qualifications - 6'4, reads feminist literature, nonchalant, fluffy hair, golden retriever energy, frequent coffee shops, I actually believe we should fix the wage gap, that is not chill at all, I will help fight the patriarchy, my favorite color is pink, wear what you want, I may be late - gave out all 30 of my lambos to my friends, also using my backup computer bc my normal computer burned up in a fire that took over one of my 16 mansions around the world, basically zachirific (look up on tik tok to know my vibe)

Do not address me as Jaxson or Judge - I am DJT (Daniel Jaxson Terreros) or much like my glorious king Donald J Trump (this is not a link)

I think debate has gotten too liberal - complaining about clarity is an immediate 0 in speaks.

I think a lot of arguments are negative aura, but I will not tell you what.

If you glaze me for your ballot I understand why, but immediate dropped speaks.

Some of the people I look up to are Tom MacDonald, Ben Shapiro, Matthew Addelstein, Jared Spiers, and James Fishback.

The greatest debater I have ever seen is Will Sterbenc - if you match his white boy flow - immediate dub ngl.

If you read Western Georgia Liberation Front arguments your opponents will have a hard time convincing me not to vote for you.

I default to neg neg.

I cannot understand new age debate jargon - what is CX - please break down the debate in terms of brain rot - "skibidi" "goon" etc.

RVIs are peak

Analytical wipeout >>>

If you mention Jacob Wilkus or Owen Williams that is plus aura - you're tapped into the underground debaters.

If you're name is Sophie/Sofia/Sophia - yea ur losing bud - don't ever enter this room again.

If you bring me yk what I will guarantee you get boosted to finals - if you ask what I want you are not doing better than 1-3.

I'm colorblind - please have ur docs highlighted in blue

What is tech? What is truth? I know that I know nothing - probably Plato I think - I didn't really pay attention to my philosophy class.

An indict on anyone in our lab is boosted speaks - even if it doesn't apply.

If you have had your MCard taken I consider you one of my disciples - if you have taken an MCard - you have no valid opinion.

One final message - I use a full 100 point scale - you start at 0 - I will then convert it to a 30 point scale.

Good luck - have fun - goon on.

Email Chain---Hjwalawender@gmail.com

Current KU Debater, previously debated at De Soto high school, Kansas.

General.

Tech >>> Truth.

Any speed is fine. That saying a few exceptions:

1. In varsity tournaments spreading is a norm but that doesn't mean you shouldn't ask. If a team says they don't want to spread, don't. I'm very comfortable voting down teams that don't respect this.

2. Please, please, please slow down on T, perms, framework, and theory. Making sure I can understand the nuance of these arguments that require a lot of depth is super important.

3. Pen time. PLEASEEEEEEE. I cannot type/write the 6 perms that you said in 3 seconds. Trust me it takes way longer than you would think.

Non highlighted warrants aren’t warrants.

I will sometimes skim over evidence (only if I'm scouting really) but otherwise, I would prefer not to.

Death good is cringe and I will not have fun in that debate, but I will still listen to spark, wipe out, or death good.

Extinction is the death of most of the human species if not all of it, most evidence does not get to this threshold and is something debaters should point out more. Just because the evidence says 'existential' in one line and does not explain how X causes extinction does not mean you access an extinction impact.

Rehighlightings are cool but this a communication activity which means I would like you to read them. I think inserting like one sentence is fine. Is it arbitrary? Yes. But reasonability outweighs or something something AT: Competing Interps---2AC.

I am sympathetic to Affs when it comes to CP competition. I think the neg has gotten WAYYYYYYY to comfortable with reading things that rely on artificial competition. But a process that says the aff or at least even the topic I think is a decent bright line. (More down below). I'm especially sympathetic to theory interps about solvency advocates.

Slightly longer sentences >>> buzz words.

Condo and disclosure are likely the only reason to reject the team for theory.

I value author quals pretty high.

Policy Affs.

Having 2-4 impacts with justifiable internal links >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having 20 impacts in the 1AC

Durable fiat only goes so far.

Proper sign posting in the 2ac is awesome. Going straight down leaves a lot of room for me to mess up which arg goes where.

Impact turning as the aff is fun and I wish I did it more. I think impact turning the net benefit is especially fun and something I would like to judge but I know condo makes this pretty difficult.

Be prepared to justify your assumptions. If you lose to the K a lot it’s likely because you are not justifying why the theory of the aff is good. This is especially true for IR/security debates.

Don't be scared to kick a part of or the entire aff if the block is long.

Don’t be afraid to go for theory against author PIKs or word PIKs.

If you get hit with procedural don’t panic. A lot of times you probably don’t link and then your response is actually problematic. (If you read that apology card vs the ableism procedural I will not be particularly happy [reading a card with multiple slurs in it doesn’t help your case bro])

In depth case debate is awesome.

Kritical Affs/Nontopical affs.

I’ve only read a policy aff so take what I say with a grain of salt.

Presumption is kinda meh for me. I don’t think the aff needs to win spill out but they should have justifications for why reading the aff is good.

T debates are kinda my worst nightmare. I can flow but damn do y’all go sooooo fast on your 2ac blocks which makes me sometimes lose the intricacies of the T response.

Impact turning >>> our model solves. I think our model solves loses to predictability most times so I would prefer just impact turning clash or fairness.

I think Affs should have a proto-plan text or just some line in the 1AC that says what you advocate.

Counter interps are often mishandled by the neg and you should take advantage of this.

Good answers to a TVA are a must. If you win the res will never incorporate your advocacy and your advocacy is good then it is pretty easy to me to vote for you even if the neg wins a clash/procedural fairness arg.

I dislike 3 min overviews of the aff.

Disproving the affs theory of power is presumption level offense for me. If they are wrong about why X happens then their advocacy that subscribes to X is likely not solvent.

DAs.

DAs that are 3 cards long with 2 sentences highlighted are cringe. Pls read warrants. Just bc your author says something doesn’t mean it is automatically true. Including the justification in the ev is vital.

Turns case evidence is often not very good and most affs should point this out. But good turns case analysis by the neg is something that will make the DA super big in my evaluation. My thoughts about case turns the DA are pretty similar.

Reading cards that are one paragraph long and have one sentence highlighted are basically analytics. Pls read evidence with reasoning.

Timeframe is underutilized. Most teams use it well in the Econ DA v climate adv but forget about it when it comes to other affs. Only one extinction can happen!

X neg impact inevitable under Y Aff impact is persuasive but without some form of defense will not win you the debate.

External impacts >>> internal. A good aff team will probably out internal link you.

Don’t be afraid to go for defense and risk of case outweighs.

Most DAs say extinction and do not get to that threshold which make the 2ac case outweighs argument very persuasively.

Negs often have bad answers to thumpers and link uniqueness arguments which is something that is really persuasive for me.

Negs should be ready to justify why the aff links to the agenda politics DA when it comes to intrinsicness.

Slight risk of the DA + a CP that solve the entire aff is game over for the aff.

Same thoughts for impact turns (I would love if you tell me to get a new sheet for one especially if you know you're gonna go for it).

CPs.

CPs should compete, you tell me what frame to use. That saying, I'm not a fan of textual competition hate.

Counterplans should have a solvency advocate. If the neg cannot prove that X action could happen over the aff then I don’t think it is a real CP that I should evaluate. Artificial competition is bad.

Delay CPs are controversial to me. Do I think they’re cheating? Yes. Are they also a good functional limit of non controversial affs? Yes.

Conditions CPs are meh and probably don’t have an advocate.

Consult CPs should have an advocate that says the topic core or the aff. The aff arg that consult is normal means is persuasive and better when carded.

Affs should impact turn the net benefit more.

Kritical CPs often are not competitive or just not real.

PICs have no bright line. Every CP is a PIC out of something. Neg theory arguments that use this logic are particularly persuasive to me.

Internal links to net benefits are pretty meh sometimes. At least ensure that your not real CP is at least kinda true.

Adv CPs are cool. 20 Plank adv CPs are not.

Uncarded CPs in the 1NC are not real, they do not have an advocate.

New 2NC CPs are abusive asf. Kicking planks is also probably abusive.

My fav CP debates are about authors who say X aff proposal is bad instead we should do Y.

Competition tricks like ban the plan are not persuasive.

K v Policy.

Perm double bind is not a real argument. I hated seeing this every round when I read the Cap K. At best it is a question of link uniqueness which most Ks will have.

Spamming perms with no explanation is bad. Perm do both with a clear net benefit >>> 7 perms that are all functionally the same.

Fairness, education, and clash should be impact turned or solved by the negs framework.

Fairness, education, and clash are impacts and need to be treated like a war impact when you answer case. Dropping one will probably mean game over.

Arguments that my ballot only solves fairness are persuasive. “Just join an online discussion group,” or “just research without debating,” are not.

Link you lose should be impact turned by the neg more often. It is basically every aff arg on framework that the 1ar extends and winning something like predictability or reasonability as defense definitely helps with this Strat.

Im sympathetic to extinction outweighs.

Consequentialism >>> deontology and various other things.

Links should be specific to the topic or the aff.
For Ks that go for large scale impacts link turns case is persuasive.

Alternatives often go undercovered by the aff and negs should utilize this.

Negs should be ready to justify their alts just like affs should have to justify their theories.

Alt solves the aff should be utilized more.

I’m a big fan of over explaining the alt especially if it is epistemology based.

Private Actor fiat bad is persuasive. Negs don’t always need to fiat the alternative.

K v K.

Most people do not like these debates and I understand why but a good K v K debate is one of my favorites.

Reading the generic Escalante party alt plus links from a camp file that don’t really apply makes cap debaters look bad.

Affs should get perms. Are they abusive sometimes? Yes. Are no perms worse? Yes.

Alternatives that solve the affs are really persuasive in these debates and make framing the link debate easy.

My fav part of these debates is that bland a crack down arguments probably link to both sides which force teams to have in-depth arguments and expositions about theories of power.

The most important parts of these debates is establishing completion. If you’re gonna read a K in the 1NC then be ready to defend the alt’s explanation of why X happens.

T-USFG/Framework.

Procedural fairness >>> probably every other impact.

The block and especially the 2nr should only extend one.

Aff counter interps are often pretty bad and don’t solve a lot. Negs should point out the aff impact turns to fairness probably link to the counter interpretation or are not solved by it.

Predictability is something both teams should utilize more.

Speeding through these debates are kinda awful to flow.

Clear sign-posting is probably the most important out of most things in this debate.

Group DAs most of them have the same thesis.

2-4 really solid DAs with impacts that connect to case >>> 20 one line DAs with barely and impact.

TVAs are important to me. I don’t think it’s the burden of the neg to prove that the aff could be topical and not reading a TVA is still a winning strat but winning that level of offense kinda makes the debate super easy to vote neg.

SSD needs to be explained better with net benefits in the 1NC. Treat SSD like a mini aff if the advantages outweigh the DAs then add is good.

Do not drop case.

T.

Competing interps >>> predictability.

I think fairness can be an impact.

Aff ground and overlimiting are underused.

Plan text in a vacuum is a mixed bag for me - I generally default to its bad but neg teams that have solid explanations of it versus other theories of competition can defo change my preference.

Buzz words are bad especially on these debates.

Spamming defense without nuance in the 2ac is bad.

Best T debates give case lists for their interps AND their opponents interps (this will also give you super high speaks if done correctly).

Theory.

Interp wording is vital. I dislike neg strats that default to just calling the aff interp arbitrary. I think all theory is arbitrary its more a question of competing interps.

nonresolutional theory args are 2n copium at best

Besides condo and disclosure I find theory as a reason to reject the team not persuasive.

I don't think judge kick is a voter but a dropped 1ar argument can change that.

I think dropping theory sucks because most time its bad and doesn't link. Auto voting down teams bc of this where I find myself questioning tech over truth but I will try my best to maintain my a fair environment. Tbh I would rather just reject the arg ie someone drops floating piks bad and I just reject the alt.

Procedurals also follow most of this but I think this is definitely where I can be convinced more on reasonability. Aff teams that say something problematic should not go all in on "their interp is arbitrary," after saying a slur. I'm sure this might make some ultra-tech people upset but being problematic inround outweighs and probably ruins the education value of debate

If you got this far please don't make fun of my lack of grammar :)

I am in my 8th year of debate. Fourth year in college at Kansas (NDT ‘24), four years prior at Lawrence Free State. I coach at Shawnee Mission East.

Please add both: jwilkus1@gmail.com and smedocs@googlegroups.com.

Last Updated: February 16^th, 2024, Pre-Spartan Green & Gold.

General:

Do what you want. I genuinely believe in debate as a space for debaters to make any argument they choose. This means I don’t care if you go for the K, read a plan, or force me to evaluate a highly technical counterplan competition debate. Over the course of my short 3 year tenure of judging, I have judged over 170 debates, voting for basically every argument imaginable.

I do care about teams making complete arguments. A complete argument is one that contains a claim, warrant, and impact. Arguments that are not explained with warrants or impacted out in the context of their opponent’s arguments are incomplete and therefore have less sway on my decision than those that are complete. For example, if the AFF has said “climate change causes extinction---ocean rise, temperature change, etc. make Earth uninhabitable by collapsing agriculture and destroying society”, the response of “no impact to climate change---it’s fake” is insufficient because a.) it does not contain a warrant (why is it fake?) and b.) it does not contain an impact (why does it matter if it is fake?).

The above applies equally to “answered” and “dropped” arguments. You cannot just say “conceded” or “they’ve dropped x” 20 times and expect me to vote on it. You still need to give a reason if it is true and implicate the concession in the debate. An argument being dropped does not guarantee it is “true”.

I have spent almost the entirety of my debate career reading a plan and going for DAs and CPs. This means while I will still vote for any argument, my experience and knowledge are both better in policy debates and the way I think about the K is attempting to beat it, not win rounds on it.

I will likely have a lot to say in the decision. I usually write a lot down, and tend to have opinions on almost everything said in the debate. I will likely talk for a while, either until I run out of things to say or am cut off by a question. Assuming the questions remain civil, I will answer any and all questions debaters, coaches, or teammates have about the round. If you start yelling at or berating me, I will likely pack up and leave.

I will do my best to give complete and thorough feedback for each speech. Too many times I've asked in an RFD "how can I improve the 1NR/2AR?" and received the response "I think the 1NR/2AR was really good. Don't have anything I'd add", while later seeing I got a 28.9. This is extremely frustrating as a debater, and I will do my best to avoid doing that by spending prep time after your speech coming up with feedback.

The bottom line for everything in this paradigm is that I care a lot about debate. I spend a large portion of my free time debating, judging, coaching, running tournaments, writing files, cutting cards, streaming debates on YouTube, etc. It has become an almost integral part of the last third of my life, and I know that is true of many of the debaters I will have the honor of judging. As such, I will try my absolute hardest in each and every debate I judge to render the correct decision and give thorough feedback.

Topicality vs. Policy AFFs:

---Competing interpretations is the only method of evaluation that makes sense to me. I do not understand how I would approach evaluating T debates if not from an offense-defense point of view. I also think that “reasonability” is meaningless and ultimately devolves into competing interpretations---instead of “we are reasonable because the NEG had the ability to debate”, explain it in the context of the risk of their impacts versus yours.

---I am getting really sick of AFFs reading vague plans that barely modify resolution language so they can go for “plan text in a vacuum”. Will I vote on it, and do I do it in my debates? Sure. But I think it’s a bad argument. Instead of touting your AFF that definitely violates as “topical” because you said a word or phrase, defend a model of debate that includes your AFF.

---In-round abuse is not necessary (it’s a debate of models), but explanation of what debates look like under your model is (case lists, examples of ground, etc.).

---My favorite T speeches I've ever watched are when the AFF has read a counter-interpretation they do not meet. This happens more often than teams realize, but is often ignored because the argument was either a cheap shot or the blanket assumption that the AFF meets the interpretation. If you think the AFF doesn't meet their own interpretation, go for it.

Topicality vs. Planless AFFs:

---Fairness can be an impact, but it also cannot. Whether it is depends equally on the NEG’s explanation and the AFF’s responses. I have found fairness to be a more persuasive impact than clash but have voted and gone for both.

---I find myself voting NEG when teams correctly use small, technical arguments to drastically reduce the risk of AFF offense (“T is a procedural, so you cannot weigh case vs. T”, “debate does not change subjectivity”, “the ballot cannot solve their offense alone, but it can solve ours”). I find myself voting AFF when teams either go for their counter-interpretation resolves NEG offense OR impact turn everything the NEG has said.

---I find it very hard to vote NEG when teams are re-reading blocks without engaging in the AFF’s arguments, or not explaining their offense in terms of what the NEG has said (going for a predictability internal link instead of a limits internal link when the counter-interpretation is “limited” but unpredictable, not comparing your impact to the language of the AFF’s impact, etc.). I find it hard to vote AFF when they are not debating technically or exploiting dropped arguments (the NEG dropping something like “small schools” or “the ballot can only solve our offense” but not going for it because your pre-written blocks don’t include an extension).

---I am a sucker for PIKs versus planless affirmatives, and usually find it far more strategic than going for topicality. When I was a 2N, many of my 2NRs versus planless affirmatives were PIKs out of random things (the phrase "mapping of time"; the phrase "lock them up"; etc.).

Disadvantages:

---Politics scenarios have become laughable. Writing a politics DA does not mean just finding a card that says a bill exists and a card that it would do good things, then throwing your generic PC or bipartisanship link and climate change impact card and making a DA. A politics scenario makes sense when it is something being actively debated or campaigned for, and when it is something the president is actually spending PC on. I love a good politics DA, but those tend to be few and far between anymore.

---I care a lot about turns case arguments---both “impact turns case” and “link turns case”. I equally care a lot about “case turns the DA” arguments. I find these to be extremely helpful in both breaking down close debates but also helping to reduce opponent’s offense because it tends to always be unanswered.

Counterplans:

---I hate watching a process CP debate---not because I think the argument is inherently bad (though it is), but because both teams are usually horrendous in doing the relevant line by line for competition.

---AFF-specific PICs are some of my favorite arguments. Topic generic PICs (like country PICs on NATO) are the opposite. I love it when counterplans contest a core assumption of the AFF, not when they negate something the AFF had no choice but to defend.

---Conditionality is good, and core to NEG strategy. I will still vote on theory, but it’s an uphill battle. I am NEG leaning on almost all theory, except for performative contradictions or international fiat, because I tend to find those violations to be extremely egregious.

---Most other theory is a reason to reject the argument, not the team. But, if the counterplan is the 2NR and you are clearly ahead on a given theory argument, go for it.

Kritiks:

---I find it much easier to vote NEG when the 2NR is FW, not the alternative. I personally think AFFs should get to weigh the plan but have found so many debaters to be horrendous at defending why that is the case. I find that FW 2NRs make the most sense when they attempt to reduce AFF offense to as close to zero as possible.

---However, I find it extremely difficult for the NEG to win FW or reps-based arguments when they have read contradictory arguments at different points in the debate, and I do not think that condo or NEG flex justifies that.

---If the 2NR is the alternative, I find it far easier to vote NEG when it is actively compared to and explained in terms of the AFF (does it solve the AFF? Make it impossible to solve?).

---I find it much easier to vote AFF when teams do impact calculus on FW or go for DAs to the alternative. It is insufficient to just say “fairness matters” or “education comes from talking about the plan”, it also needs to be explained in terms of why the NEG’s interpretation forecloses it and why those things matter more than the NEG’s offense. The same is true for the alternative---most AFF teams let the NEG get away with murder in terms of alternative explanation (especially when going for the alt solves the AFF), so reasons why the alternative does not make sense or cannot solve the links / AFF would be super helpful.

---AFF specific links > topic generic links > the USFG is bad > the theory of power is a link.

Case:

---The more time you spend on case, the better. My ideal 1NC is a single DA, a single CP, and 5.5 minutes of case. But this is high school policy debate so I know I will never get that.

---I find case debating that is just impact defense to be woefully insufficient. Solvency deficits, internal link defense, or analytics of any kind go a long way.

---You should go for the impact turn. Debaters are horrible at answering it, and I love a good, and fun, impact turn debate.