Dodson,+Marshall

Judge's Name: Marshall Dodson High School Graduation Date: 2008 Judge's e-mail: marshall.dodson89@gmail.com Experience: - College debater Rounds Judged this topic: 20 Judge Paradigm: Tabula Rasa Rate of Delivery: 5 Fast Quantity of Arguments: 5 Many Topicality: 3 Moderately Counterplans: 1 acceptable Generic Disadvantages: 1 acceptable Conditional Negative Positions: 1 acceptable Debate Theory Arguments: 1 acceptable Kritik arguments: 1 acceptable Overall judging paradigm: A few things I should note first: 1) Be civil during your debate. I really hate it when partners argue throughout the whole debate. Even if you are behind in the debate you will be more likely to get good speaks if you are nice.

2) Arguments should have a claim, warrant, and implication.

3) A dropped argument almost always = a true argument. The only exception is if the original argument did not include the requirements in #2, in which case I might give the team that dropped the arg some leeway in hedging against an entirely new warrant or implication.

4) Finally, all of the below is just personal preference. Do what you are good at and everything will be fine.

Specifics: DAs – I love them. In-depth politics rounds are great. The more specific the DA the better. The legitimacy of intrinsicness arguments is debatable.

Coounter Plans - Process/Consult CPs –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 – K debates are a double-edged sword. They can be off-the-charts great if there is a coherent link, impact, and alternative articulated on the line-by-line, or mind-numbingly awful if the 2NC is just one giant overview that talks about random things for a while. Don’t assume I know what a kritik says. If you are worried about being able to explain your kritik given this you probably shouldn’t run it yet. With that being said, 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 team. 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.

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.

Framework - should be brought up as early as possible, if it is part of your strategy for answering a k. But you MUST diversify your arguments when answering a k, you are much better off answering the substance of the K than relying solely on framework. If the negative wins the argument that their K is grounded in topic literature then the aff will need to win some (carded) reasons why an exclusive focus on policy debate is good or they will probably lose the race to the theoretical middle.

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.

Specific Theory Arguments – Conditionality is cool, but it gets less cool as the number of worlds presented and the wackiness of the general negative strategy increase. 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.

Perm theory = almost never a reason to reject the team. This is not definite, however. I can be persuaded that a certain perm or things like multiple perms are voting issues.

Consult CPs – I think these CPs are absolutely devastating to aff ground unless the solvency evidence is case-specific. I won’t necessarily vote these CPs down on theory, but I am very receptive to the perm, especially if justified by these types of theory arguments. Simply put, I think that the perm to do the counterplan is 100% legitimate and that severance based on time is stupid.

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.

Performative contradictions – two examples: 1) Neg reads a states CP and a kritik of capitalism that links to the CP. Perfectly fine in my opinion, but debate it out. 2) Neg reads a kritik of war impacts and reads a DA with a war impact. Probably a bad idea. I will err aff here, so be ready for an uphill battle if you do this on the neg.

Beyond not being reasons to reject the team, some of the following 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.

Topicality – 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 why your CP is competitive or the case links to the DA).

Other procedurals (ASPEC, OSPEC, and the like) – I’ll vote on these, but I think a prerequisite to the neg winning these debates is that they win a resolutional basis. You may give a flawless 2NR on ASPEC but if you don’t convince me agent ground is key to the topic you probably won’t win.

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. With that being said, if you tag the Mead '09 evidence as saying "nuclear war" or "extinction" I will deduct half a speaker point.

Paperless – I understand that many teams are just transitioning to paperless now, so I will give an appropriate amount of leeway for jumping and tech issues I don’t take prep time for jumping, but I will get visibly (and probably verbally) upset if you abuse my generosity. Prep ends when you begin saving the document on to the jump drive. If you decide to take advantage of me via being a paperless debater: I WILL take prep time if you decide to take time to remove your analytics from your speech document or decide to add that last card and pretend your computer is frozen. This is subjective as I will then deduct a subjective amount of prep time based off of my own, untimed, calculation of that prep you just used, in addition to taking prep from that point on from your team while jumping. You'll also lose speaker points (a lot of them). Honestly, It’s not hard to notice that you are stealing or taking prep, etc. being around paperless debate probably more than you have debated as a paperless as a debater.

New in the 2NC – I don’t care one way or the other, but it is almost never strategic. I think that new DAs, CPs, or Ks in the block 1) means I give the 1AR leeway in answering every argument in the debate and 2) justify new 1AR answers, maybe even on old flows.

Speaker points – apparently I am a point-fairy, but I’m trying to change my scale. 27 is my average, 28 means you are on the borderline of being able to clear, 28.5 means I think you should break, 29 means I think you deserve a top-10 speaker award, 29.5 means I think you are in contention for a top-5 speaker award, 30 means you are the best speaker I have ever heard. Low-point wins are rare and usually indicate that one team dropped a small argument on a theory flow or that the 2AC and 2AR were good but the 1AR couldn’t cover.

Overviews, not underviews - overviews should frame the debate, not "sum up/do impact calc if I have time."

Stop speaking when you are done making arguments – I know it’s hard to do, there are few things I hate more than debaters who just stand up and repeat themselves for 5 minutes, by doing this many times it can show your overall grasp of the round and gain you favorability in front of me.

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. Any references to television shows and or movies you believe are related to any of these are ok, and it is safe to assume I have heard of or seem them.

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.