Justin Green

1st year Coach - Kansas State

Rounds Judged this year: roughly 45

Topicality: It is a voting issue. Arguments veiled as Topicality not

being a voting issue i.e. Literature Checks Abuse, No Abuse whines,

etc. do not get that far. I think it primarily comes down to definitions

of terms (which appear in the resolution). What are they, which is

better, and is a reasonable definition enough? - are all important

questions. I have not been involved in judging a large amount of T

debates yet this year - just thought you should

know. "Kritiking" Topicality or other things similar - No particular bias

- wanting to hear good args both ways.

Other Procedural Voting Issues: Make the argument and give a fully

developed warrant as to why it is a voting issue. The words "voting

issue" without a proper explanation is not sufficient. In the event the

1ar drops a voting issue hidden in the middle of a Clinton disad I am

likely to give the 2ar some leeway.

Counterplan Theory: I hold no strong biases and have voted both ways on

theory debates. It is the negatives job to clearly identify the nature or

disposition of their counterplan. If it is never discussed, I will assume

that it is conditional and that if it goes away I will compare the plan

versus the status quo. The Aff should clearly argues what happens with

permutations. I will assume that it is only a test of the competition of

the counterplan unless otherwise mentioned. Please also explain what you

mean when you say you advocate the permutation - does that means the plan

is no longer an option?

Critical Arguments: Voted about half and half here too. The negative

should tailor their argument to the specific affirmative; it's ok if your

cards are more generic, just apply them specifically to the Aff. The

negative should also clearly tell what the alternative and impact is and

how that weighs against the Aff advantage. I will assume the negative is

defending the status quo unless otherwise explicitly noticed and defended.

Language Critiques: I think debaters should discuss with the other team

before the debate about words/arguments they find personally offensive in

order to prevent harmful situations from arising. After being involved in

an emotionally charged debate earlier this year, I am still unsure how I

feel about them being voting issues. Obviously an apology is in order,

but that may or may not be enough. If you do read a peice of evidence

unknowingly that has offensive language, and upon realizing it you

immediately ask to throw it out the debate and apologize, then I am

unlikely to vote against you.

Tape Recording: I may be tape recording the debates. Not because I will

be checking every card you read to see if you read every word (I assume

that people won't cheat), but so that if debates come down to exact

phrasings about words spoken (permutations, non-intrinsics, language

kritiks) then I am not guessing about what happened when a career hangs in

the balance.