rafaelpierry@gmail.com
Tech over everything. Fine for any argument, but my background and personal beliefs are more policy than critical. Debate’s a game, but you can make arguments for why it should be treated differently.
Evaluating debates:
I judge debates technically. I’ll flow---even if requested not to---and will decide the debate through an offense/defense paradigm. I can be persuaded to adopt a different judging rubric, but am extremely unlikely to abandon the conventions of technical debating (concessions are true, new arguments are illegitimate, and so on).
I’ve noticed I have a lower bar for a ‘warrant’ than most. I am unlikely to reject an argument for being a ‘cheap shot’ and certainly not for lacking some nebulous ‘data’ that many adjudicators use as an excuse to enforce their own argumentative preferences. In my experience, unwarranted arguments are easily answered by new contextualization, cross-applications, or equally unwarranted arguments.
I’ll reject new arguments and protect earlier speeches judiciously, but you need to actually flag an argument as new in your speech.
Critical Affs and Framework:
If equally debated, I’m likely to conclude the aff needs to defend a topical plan. I don’t have a strong ideological predisposition against critical affs, but I’m skeptical of many of the most common offensive responses to framework, including those that insinuate violence committed by the negative team.
Critical teams should pref me above ‘no plan, no win’ judges, but below their ideal tier of ‘anything goes’ judges. If you out tech the other team, you’ll win.
I’m equally good for ‘skills’ and ‘fairness’ framework. The aff either needs to counter-define resolutional words or win an impact turn large enough to outweigh the full weight of the neg’s offense.
Critiques on the Neg:
The best critiques are framework arguments that moot the plan. Critiques make little sense when they use the language of causation or are debated like CPs. Then, arguments like ‘link non-unique’ or ‘perm: double-bind’ become close to unbeatable.
I am much better for frameworks that exclude the case (or, alternatively, exclude the K) than most. I will decide the FW debate in favor of one side’s interpretation, not attempt to divine some arbitrary middle ground that splits the difference. Of course, you are free to advocate a middle ground interpretation.
Topicality:
I judge topicality like any other position---offense/defense and competing interpretations. Reasonability is winnable but requires substantial time investment. Remember, reasonability is about the reasonableness of your interpretation, not your particular case.
I don’t have any strong feelings about standards. Fine both for ‘predictability outweighs limits’ and the reverse.
Theory:
Most theoretical objections to CPs are better expressed through competition. The average theory interpretation is self-serving and contrived. All CPs have ‘a process,’ anyone can be ‘a solvency advocate,’ and any CP could ‘result in the plan.’
Against these and similar interpretations, I find neg appeals to arbitrariness difficult to overcome. If, however, you manage to craft an elegant theory interpretation, I’ll be receptive. This could include ‘CPs can only fiat governments,’ ‘CPs may not fiat both federal and sub-national actors,’ and so on.
My default is limitless condo. This is a strong default as far as the 1NC and a moderate default for the block. I can be persuaded some egregious CPing---like CPing out of a straight turn in the 2NC---is illegitimate, but I’m inclined to lean negative there as well.
Counterplans:
Much better for process and competition-based strategies than most. I don’t share the sanctimonious distaste many hold for plan inclusive or Process CPs. I don't think a net benefit is bad because it is 'artificial' or 'not germane,' and I don't think anyone is educationally impoverished by the neg going for a Process CP instead of DA/Case.
Equally good for ‘must compete textually and functionally’ and ‘functionally only.’ Textual competition alone is a hard sell. If the aff wins the CP needs to compete both textually and functionally, that justifies partially intrinsic perms.
I’ll judge kick the CP if no one says anything. If the aff wants me not to, they need to make the argument in the 1AR but it’s an uphill battle.
Disadvantages:
I don’t understand the moral panic about politics, ‘generic’ DAs, or links to fiat. A disadvantage is just some negative consequence the plan brings about. The nature of that consequence is entirely irrelevant except to the extent it impacts the neg’s chances of victory. You should go for the DA most likely to win.
Link-uniqueness is extremely underutilized.
Case:
You don’t need to extend impacts in the 2AC if the 1NC dropped them. Just briefly reference the concession and move on. The same applies to the 1AR, although you should give a quick explanatory sentence that demonstrates you identified the concession and are extending your scenario.
What ‘fiat’ means should be debated like any other argument. My default is to assume that fiat entails durable, good-faith passage and implementation of the plan.
Speaker Points:
I try to give good points. My general scale is as follows:
29.4+ --- Top speaker
29.1-29.3 --- Late elims
28.9-29.1 --- Mid elims
28.7-28.9 --- Debating to clear
28.5-28.7 --- Even
28.0-28.5 --- Below even
Below 28 --- Other
Miscellaneous:
For online debates, I’d prefer cameras on. I won’t punish you if you choose to keep it off though.
You don’t need to take prep for tech issues, going to the bathroom, getting water, etc.
You don’t need to flash analytics.