Hebert,+Evan

Judge's Name: Evan Hebert High School Graduation Date: 2010 Judge's e-mail: evanhebert@gmail.com Experience: - Coach a team - High School debater - College debater - Occasionally Judge Rounds Judged this topic: ~30 Judge Paradigm: Tabula Rasa Rate of Delivery: 5 Fast Quantity of Arguments: 3 A moderate number Topicality: 3 Moderately Counterplans: 1 acceptable Generic Disadvantages: 2 usually acceptable Conditional Negative Positions: 2 usually acceptable Debate Theory Arguments: 1 acceptable Kritik arguments: 3 sometimes acceptable Overall judging paradigm: Preferences (Short version): Run whatever you debate best, and do comparative impact calc in the 2NR/2AR.

Preferences (Long version):

Theory: I lean neg on most theory questions, I think that two conditional counterplans is becoming a norm especially in high school debate, but I'll default to execution. To win condo in front of me, the aff probably has to prove some in-round abuse other than "the 2AC was spread out." You have blocks. If the neg reads the cap K and an econ impact in the 1NC, however, that is worth pointing out in the 2AR if you're going for condo. My interpretation of conditionality is that the status quo is always an option, regardless of whether the 2NR extends a counterplan, but the question is certainly debatable. Most other theory questions in my opinion are always a reason to reject the argument rather than the team. I'm not a huge fan of counterplans that compete on the nature of fiat. I think that politics theory is generally a reason to indict the internal link, not a reason to start permuting disads.

Topicality: For me, T usually comes down to whether or not the literature base the affirmative opens up is uniquely bad for debate. This means that providing a case list is particularly important for me, so both the aff and neg should try to do so. I think limits are generally good, and if your strategy on T is to impact turn things like ground and predictability, you probably shouldn't pref me. I think that affirmative interpretations should do more than say that whatever the aff does meets x word, they should also provide a general definition of x word. I'm particularly receptive to "topical version of the aff."

The Kritik: It was never really my thing, but if it's yours you shouldn't change your strategy. In my opinion, in a great number of K debates, both the aff and neg forget about the case. This usually leaves the judge in a bad spot, and in that situation I am likely to lean affirmative unless they make large mistakes on the framework flow, etc. 2NR "kritik turns the case" will get you much further than "x is a prior question" when i make my decision. Even if you don't have specific cards about the affirmative, try to create a link/impact story which deals with the case. The affirmative should defend the scenarios they lay out in the 1AC and give me a reason why those matter in the 1AR/2AR. I'll rarely conclude that there is a 0% risk of the case, so try or die is a good framing for the 2AR. I'm an ok judge for the affirmative to go for framework in front of, but you have to impact it in the 2AR. "Kritiks are unfair" is a bad argument, "questions of policy should come first" is a better argument. That said, I won't vote on a floating PIK if the word "perm" is anywhere in the 2AR.

Impact calc: For some reason, there is often a lack of impact defense on both sides in high school debate. When this is the case, I will usually default to whatever impact has the largest risk of either occurring first, implicating the other side's impacts, or outweighing for an external reason. Phrases like "the disad turns the case faster than the case can turn the disad" can go a long way in the 2NR, and will help your speaks. Alternatively, try or die is also a good framing for the aff in debates without a counterplan or much impact defense on the case. I very rarely drop the neg when they win their impact substantively turns/outweighs the case in a close debate. Maybe this means you should read an extra card on DA turns case in the 2NC rather than the eighth politics uniqueness card.

Ethics Statement: Agree