Meloche,+Brad

Judge's Name: Meloche, Brad High School Graduation Date: 2008 Judge's e-mail: bradgmu@gmail.com Experience: - Coach a team - College debater - Frequently Judge Rounds Judged this topic: about 65 Judge Paradigm: Tabula Rasa Rate of Delivery: 5 Fast Quantity of Arguments: 5 Many Topicality: 1 Vote on it often Counterplans: 1 acceptable Generic Disadvantages: 1 acceptable Conditional Negative Positions: 1 acceptable Debate Theory Arguments: 1 acceptable Kritik arguments: 1 acceptable Overall judging paradigm: The attached questions are practically useless as tools to help you figure out how I actually make decisions. For example, it is impossible to determine how "often" I vote on topicality. I vote on it 100% of the time it is won by the negative. Just read the below.


 * MIFA specific -** I will not be persuaded by MIFA rules violations. I will view these like any other theory argument and I could easily be convinced that other standards outweigh "its a rule". As such, if I am forced to penalize a team for a MIFA rules violation and you don't specifically convince me that the punishment has to be rejecting the team, my punishment will probably a trivial speaker point reduction. My interpretation of the MIFA paperless guidelines is that I shouldn't give extra time to paperless teams that I wouldn't give to paper teams. Thus, I hereby state that I will not take prep time for paper teams to give an extra copy of their speech to their opponents.

Name: Brad Meloche School: Seaholm High School Preclusions: Seaholm Rounds on the transportation topic (as on 10/12/12): about 65

The following should help you figure out how I will make decisions. If I don’t mention a specific type of argument, that’s probably because I don’t have an opinion on that argument one way or another. Much of the following was written bit by bit when I wanted to go off on a rant about a particular argument I found annoying at that time. I'm not as angry/mean as the following might make me seem to be and I might be more flexible than I let on. I would prefer that you stick to your guns rather than over-adapt and make an argument you aren't comfortable with.

Notes for the 2012-13 Season: I have done a lot more pre-season research on this topic than I have in years past, and while I get that there are a lot of affs on this topic, I still stand by my comments below regarding mechanism CPs and states CPs (especially ones that also fiat the usfg to solve the aff's fed key warrant). Being aff is still hard and it is remarkably hard for affs on this topic to get offense vs. these CPs.

Background – I debated for four years at Groves High School in Beverly Hills, MI. During my senior year I debated almost exclusively on the national circuit, reaching elimination rounds at East Grand Rapids, New Trier, and Harvard. I have debated for four years at Wayne State University in Detroit, MI, clearing at regional and national tournaments and during the 2011-12 season qualifying for the NDT. As a coach for Seaholm High School my debaters have reached elimination rounds at local and national tournaments.

Process/Condition/Consult CPs – I absolutely hate these arguments. Listening to these debates is only slightly more fun than scooping your eyes out with a rusty spoon. In all seriousness, I don’t think these CPs are competitive. I am a hack for perm: do the cp. I know you people are going to ignore this and still read these arguments, so just be warned – you are fighting an uphill battle.

Kritiks – I’m pretty familiar with a large portion of the literature, mostly from having debated the K during my career, not because I find Heidegger’s Being and Time or D&G’s A Thousand Plateaus particularly interesting reads. I recognize that, for better or worse, these arguments play a role in debate and are here to stay, but many of them aren’t really my cup of tea. I’m usually puzzled why the impact of the K turns the case or how the alternative solves without falling into the classic perm double-bind trap. If you are going to run the kritik, I am a much better judge for Ks that link to the plan and not just to the methodology, assumptions, or representations of the affirmative. While these arguments aren't my favorite, framework arguments that the neg doesn’t get to fiat an alternative are not very persuasive to me either. A better argument would be that the specific nature of the alternative is bad (it’s utopian, a floating PIK, etc.). Even then, these sound like arguments that I should allow otherwise questionable perms and not a reason to reject the neg. Teams that focus too much on these arguments often drop K tricks (no value to life, the aff is a lie, the plan is unethical, etc.) and will lose on the linear DA to the plan. I am not a fan of death good/not real arguments (Lanza, etc.). The choice DA (everyone should get to choose for themselves if they want to live or not) is very compelling to me. There is a reason Lanza publishes his crap in the Huffington Post (a blog masquerading as a newspaper) and not the New England Journal of Medicine. Just sayin'...

A note on "value to life" arguments in particular - I am a sucker for the args that you have to be alive to have value to life and that value to life can be regained. I probably won't vote on VTL if these arguments are in your final rebuttal.

Tldr, you are much better off answering the substance of the K than relying solely on framework. 

Theory – theory arguments that aren’t some variation of “conditionality bad” aren’t reasons to reject the team. These arguments pretty much have to be dropped and clearly flagged as reasons to vote against the other team for me to consider voting on them. As for conditionality, I don’t think answering one conditional K and one conditional CP is too heavy a burden for the 2ac. Anything beyond that is debatable. Beyond not being reasons to reject the team, some arguments don't require a response: neg fiat bad, multiple perms bad, topical CPs bad, non-topical CPs bad, 2NC CPs bad, new affs bad/not disclosing bad, reverse voting issues of any kind. For these arguments, merely acknowledging their existence and giving a thumbs down or similar gesture/statement is sufficient.

A note about 50 state fiat: I am probably aff leaning on 50 state fiat. I think it is a debate construction and near impossible for the aff to beat. This is particularly true when the neg adds a lot of things to the CP text to avoid solvency deficits (delegating to the states, having the states amend their constitutions, etc.). More teams should go for this argument, not as a reason to reject the team, but definitely as a reason the neg doesn't get the CP.

Politics theory (intrinsicness, fiat solves the link, vote no, bottom of the docket) – I do not find any of these arguments persuasive. I think politics DAs are good, and I think each one of these arguments would limit out that discussion, so without some arguments that I can’t think of right now, politics disads good theory would adequately answer all of these arguments.

Debate Bad/Performance/Project Arguments – I have never voted for one of these arguments. Maybe you’ll be the first. Probably not though. Reading that evidence from Spanos where he talks about how debate makes everyone into Karl Rove is definitely not going to make me want to pull the trigger on this either, for the record. In fact, reading this evidence will probably make you lose speaker points.

Topicality/Procedurals – I like a good T debate. By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. A good T debate usually requires evidence being read by both teams, but as with all other issues, don’t be afraid to make an argument you don’t necessarily have evidence to support. An interpretation not found in evidence might still be superior to a shitty definition with evidence. T is always a voting issue and NEVER a reverse voting issue. Specification arguments that are not based in the resolution or that don't have strong literature proving their relevance are rarely a reason to vote neg (but they may be reasons your CP is competitive).

A note for teams that are purposefully not topical/kritik topicality: T is not fascist, racist, and does not justify the use of a genocide machine. I think I am a decent judge for the neg going for T against affs without a connection to the resolution/plan text.

As with theory, there are T arguments that are intellectually...lacking. These include: substantially = w/o material qualifications, in = throughout, increase=pre-existing etc. Answer these arguments accordingly, and if you are neg please don't make these arguments and for sure don't extend them.

Other Important Things/Pet Peeves/Things That Grind My Gears

Evidence - it shouldn't suck (I'm looking at you South China Morning Post, Corsi, etc.) – Don't read bad evidence. In addition to being poor strategy, reading this crap will lose you speaker points. On the flip side, I will reward quality research. I've done a ton more work on this topic then on the space or military topics and research is definitely my favorite part of this activity, so debate with that in mind.

Paperless – I don’t take prep time for jumping, but I will get visibly (and probably verbally) pissed off if you abuse my generosity. I WILL take prep time if you decide to take time to remove your analytics from your speech document. Prep endswhen you begin saving the document on to the jump drive.

Be funny – If you are one of those debaters who can pull off jokes without wasting your time or sounding canned then go for it. I'm usually pretty exhausted at debate tournaments so keeping me amused and interested would probably be good for you. In my opinion a little bit of humor directed at your opponents' arguments (notice how this is different from making fun of your opponents themselves) keeps the debate interesting. Applicable references to Arrested Development, the Dark Knight trilogy and The Big Lebowski are a plus. Extra points for references to the West Wing or The Newsroom.

My name isn't "judge" - so don't refer to me as such

Cheating - I want to state this explicitly so you will know what to expect if this ever happens (please never let this happen). I will not intervene in a round if I believe you are clipping cards (though I may start recording your speeches to check for myself and if I find evidence of it I will tell your coaches and give you low speaks), but if one team (Team A) accuses another team (Team B) of clipping cards, I will stop the round in the middle of the speech/cross-x/prep time/whenever and ask that team if they want to stake the round on this ethical violation. If Team A says no, the round will continue as if nothing happened. If Team A says yes, both teams can present me whatever evidence they have (a recording is pretty much the only way to prove it). I will then decide if I believe that (Team B) clipped cards. If I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Team B clipped cards, I will vote for Team A and give both members of Team B the lowest points that the tournament will allow (unless the tournament has their own policy). I will either get the tab room to give the debaters from Team A their average speaker points or if they won't do that, 28's. If I don't think they clipped cards I will vote for team B (and either get the tab room to give the debaters from Team B their average speaker points or if they won't do that, 28's) and give the debaters from Team A 26's. I believe that this system provides an obvious disincentive to cheating but also imposes a pretty stiff penalty on throwing around serious accusations that you cannot back up with evidence. The same rules basically apply for all ethical challenges.

Ethics Statement: Agree