Miller,+Josh

I’m currently in my third year debating at MSU. I judge a lot of SDI debates on the Foreign Presence Topic, but have only judged at a couple of tournaments since then. First, be nice to other debaters; there is no need for name-calling or any other near violent or violent actions. What you say determines if you win or lose in front of me, not necessarily how loud you say it. (Unless you say it so quietly that I can’t hear what you are saying). Racist, sexist or any other offensive language or actions will result in lower points and will likely result in a loss if it is really excessive and/or the other team makes in an argument in the round about it. Evidence: I require that the Author(s) and date are read out-loud. Make sure you read warrants in the evidence, not just claims. I am likely to call for evidence after the round, but I think it is the job of the debaters to explain the warrants of their cards and compare these warrants to the other team's cards. I will call cards in debates where there is an ethical challenge or neither team explained or compared warrants or if both teams did a good job comparing evidence. If someone is caught cheating (clipping cards/fabricating evidence), that person will receive zero speaker points and the team that the person was on will receive a loss. Disads: Run them. Negative: make arguments like DA turns the case and weigh the DA against the case. Affirmative: use offensive turns and weigh advantages against the DA, and please don't double turn yourself. Winning uniqueness doesn’t mean that you have won a very strong risk of a link; it just means that link-turns aren’t offensive. “Zero risk makes no sense to me” - David Strauss, MSU. Counterplans: counterplans work really well when ran with a specific Net-Benefit or solvency turns on-case. I leave it up to the debaters to determine whether or not a perm or counterplan is illegitimate or legitimate. However, if a perm is found to be illegitimate, I usually feel that it is a reason to reject the permuation, and not the team (same goes for counterplans in general). I usually find counterplans that compete on the certainty of the plan (ie consult and condition counterplans) are pretty shady when it comes to theory and more importantly competition. Lately, I have found that more teams need to be willing to at least introduce the permutation to do the counterplan in the debate. I don’t necessarily think the new style “recommendation” counterplan is competitive, but I am not sold one way or another on the issue. Dispo and Condo: I think dispo is good; I really don't have a leaning on Condo either way. Two conditional counterplans is starting to get shady. I start leaning strongly aff if there are three or more conditional counterplans. Critiques: I will be honest. I am not as familiar on critique literature as some other judges are, and lean aff in K debates more than other judges do (I am a hack for the permutation). If you plan to go for a K, explain the alternative, the world of the alternative and the role of the ballot. The affirmative is usually in a good spot in front of me if they answer arguments (like at all) such as ontology first, ethics first, the alt solves the case, the K turns the case, etc. However, there is decent probability that the affirmative will lose if one or more of these arguments are dropped. If the K assumes that death or suffering are good, it will be very difficult for the negative to win in front of me. Critique affirmatives are okay, but I do think that the Aff should have a plan text of some sort or another and should defend that plan. Framework: It’s up to the debaters to determine what the framework for the debate is. Also, I think that framework questions should be brought up as soon as possible in the debate – after the 2AC (for either the aff or the neg) is probably too late. Case: Defense on impacts of advantages or the advantages themselves will help me with my decision after the round. Having said that, it is unlikely that you will win in front of me with just defense on case. Read solvency turns, I like them. Also, I am a really good judge for try-or-die for the aff. If you are on the negative and go for the status quo, but do not answer one of the advantages or impacts the aff has, you will lose (if the aff remembers to extend their impact that you dropped). Topicality: I lean affirmative in a lot of topicality debates if the aff is at the core of the topic and the literature and can be sold that reasonability is the best way to evaluate a T debate. Defining substantial as some random percentage is not going to get very fair in front of me. However, sometimes affs do run from the core of the topic. In those instances, feel free to go for topicality. In you do, please develop it as much as you would any other argument. Also, topicality is not a reverse-voting issue. Specification: I really don’t like them that much, but I find that the affirmatives haven’t answered them that well in some of the rounds I’ve judged. For example, saying cross-x checks abuse in a round where the other team asked and you didn’t clarify isn’t a very persuasive argument to me. Aside from that, if the affirmative makes a couple of compelling arguments, I don’t see myself voting on this type of argument. Tag-teaming is fine, but I won't flow anything you say in your partner's speech until they say it as well. I also don't think that one partner should dominate all four cross-x periods. Performance: I really don't have much experience with this type of debate. You would probably have to do a lot of work on explaining what the purpose of my ballot is and how it would change debate/the world. Also, you will probably need to point out a couple of reason why this change is good. I'll probably not be persuaded by links of omission. If you still have any questions, please ask before the round starts. If I can tell that you enjoy debating, I will probably enjoy judging the debate.