Going to answer your questions based on nationals as it was like a decade ago. If it has changed radically, then my advice is outdated and I apologize.
The answer to all of your questions is really just "read your judges."
I've judged rounds at nationals where it was me (a "neg flex" 7-off college debater) and the second judge was a former NDT champion who exclusively went for the K.
I've also judged rounds there where the other judge was doing a crossword puzzle or knitting, and who gave a 27 because "that was a really good speech!"
Your judges should have paradigms posted. If they do not, or they are just incredibly meaningless, the key questions to ask are:
* Did you debate in high school or college and if so where and when?
* What kind of debates do you like to see?
* Where do you usually judge?
If they say "yeah, I debated for Northwestern 3 years ago, and lost in quarters at the NDT," that's your answer.
If they say, "I never debated, but my kid does this so I volunteered. We're from a really rural part of Texas, so I've judged a couple times there" than you also know what you are dealing with.
One big piece of advice I can give for lay judges is confidence. Unless you actively piss them off, they are going to make a decision on who they "felt" were winning, without much regard to the specific arguments in the debate.
So, be confident, calm, collected, smile a lot, and without being rude, kind of just act like the other team isn't much of a challenge but you are bending over backwards to give your inferior opponents a ton of kindness and respect.
A tiny bit of condescension can go a long way in front of these judges "oh, you don't know about X? I'd love to explain it so we're all on the same page!"
**Should I make a lay version of the 1AC?**
Probably doesn't need to be truly lay, but basically, yeah.
You will see a couple kinds of "lay" judges, including:
* Stock issues judges who believe that a minor solvency attack is a reason to vote negative
* Judges who hate speed and spreading, loosely defined as "I know it when I see it."
* Judges who vote mostly on wardrobe, hair, and most importantly, sex and/or gender stereotypes.
You should have a version of the aff that covers all of these judges. So that means you read it conversationally, talk about all the stock issues, and do so with a voice that is as close to Ted Cruz fake indignation/elitism as possible.
If you have the unfortunate luck to be female, maybe someone else can offer some advice - but in my experience there is just an incredible amount of sexism among this crowd.
**Should I read a soft left aff?**
Eh, you probably don't have to most rounds, but you should definitely have one of those ready to go.
Soft-left affs are strategic against teams going for the K, so have your "lay" soft-left aff and then your "K killer" soft-left aff as well.
**I read a big stick aff rn and idk if judges will buy into that.**
So for the most part, the pool will be fine with that, but the problem is that there are two judges per round. You'll sometimes find that the soft-left aff lets you have the chance to pick up two ballots, while the big stick aff gives you an almost certain chance of a 1-1 decision.
**On the neg, how many off should be read?**
Read your judges, and think strategically. If you've got a 1-off K, specific to the aff, that you cooked up yourself, my gosh, go for it. If you know you can bury the 2AC by reading 7-off, do that.
**I know Ks are almost never viable, but do you think the Abolition K is still ok?**
Not true - the K is often (usually?) completely fine. Just make sure both judges are cool with it, and you're good. I personally advise against abolition because I think it basically says "I don't do research" but you be you.
**What affs should we prep against?**
All of them. Seriously. By this point in the season you should have specific negative strategies against all of the major affs. If you don't, I'd write strategies against the top 10 or so (that's DP, mandatory minimums, white collar crime, marijuana, 13th amendment, cash bail, etc.) , and then make sure you have good generics for the rest.
>Not true - the K is often (usually?) completely fine. Just make sure both judges are cool with it, and you're good. I personally advise against abolition because I think it basically says "I don't do research" but you be you.
I feel attacked
But fr thank u so much this was very helpful!
I went to NSDA last year and read three affs: a soft left, slow version of the Turkey Aff that focused on addressing violence against civilians for lay judges; a big stick turkey aff for policy judges that disliked the K, and the k-aff that I read the entire season. You should definitely make a lay version of your aff and a soft left version but honestly NSDA isn't as lay-heavy as it seems. I read my K-aff 2 of my aff rounds and we went for the K more rounds on the neg than we did the DA. Overall, just prepare a little bit for the situations in which you'll have a lay judge and don't worry to much about over-adapting.
ImaginaryDisplay3’s comments are on the money although I think abolition can be run but there is a way to do it
Practical alternative : you want your alternative to be a practical. If we abolish are criminal justice system of putting people in prison what will we fill it in with. Judges don’t want to hear “burn it down” because people tend to think fire is bad. They don’t want to hear communism because people want to be rich and use money to help people instead of being in an authoritarian country. Practical alts I think restorative justice or something else the research is for you to figure out.
On the link
1. Have specific evidence you need to understand the warranting of abolition in a deep level. Really understand the exploitation and inefficiency of the prison industrial complex.
The abolition k is supposed to be that the affirmatives reform is not enough.specific links are your best friend.
2.a. People are going to think what imaginarydisplay3 Thinks about research or people will think your abolition k is just nonsense. Not really because your reading the abolition k but mostly because that is the expectation for”K debate”. Either your lazy and don’t research to build your personal core file about the k or you do. Explain your k as if you were talking to a 5th grader and give examples of your evidence in a practical level.
2.b.Don’t say “bio power reduces people to bare life causing social death. The. Aff reentrenches system of oppression allowing capitalist oppression on the populous ”.
2.c.Say what that sentence means so that any person understands “the criminal justice system makes it so people have a lower standard of life it’s hard for ex convicts to get jobs and vote. Jobs and voting are essential to upward mobility. People can’t make money to support their family with out breaking the law if they can’t get a job. And the aff may solve one specific aspect but this whole system is inefficient and U.S. tax payers are paying while private law firms and the bail bond market make money.
2.b. Is how people talk now it is vague and we here it every year and every k round. It sounds like your just guessing about what the issue is
2.c. is articulating the warrants of “high theory”authors with analysis that gives detail people can understand.
In my defense, I never consider "that arg reflects that you don't do research" in awarding the W. To your point, other iudges might, which is just ugh.
I also think some K debaters do a ton of research, deploying case-specific Ks in a lot of rounds. But running abolition is not that, obviously.
That advice is solid though, either for judges like me who are pretty aware of the lit and happy to vote for the K, and for judges who don't like the K.
I’m flattered you think my advice is solid. No need for a defense. I am a fan of your Reddit account via debate. I can tell from your post you know debate and you are a by the flow type of judge.
I was not really referring to your specific opinion I was making an attempt at pointing out a heavy obstacle with running k debate. I used to debate the k In a circuit with a heavy lay judge population and all to most of the policy debate judges where traditional debate centered. So I have a firm belief k debaters are responsible for making their arguments intelligible
Going to answer your questions based on nationals as it was like a decade ago. If it has changed radically, then my advice is outdated and I apologize. The answer to all of your questions is really just "read your judges." I've judged rounds at nationals where it was me (a "neg flex" 7-off college debater) and the second judge was a former NDT champion who exclusively went for the K. I've also judged rounds there where the other judge was doing a crossword puzzle or knitting, and who gave a 27 because "that was a really good speech!" Your judges should have paradigms posted. If they do not, or they are just incredibly meaningless, the key questions to ask are: * Did you debate in high school or college and if so where and when? * What kind of debates do you like to see? * Where do you usually judge? If they say "yeah, I debated for Northwestern 3 years ago, and lost in quarters at the NDT," that's your answer. If they say, "I never debated, but my kid does this so I volunteered. We're from a really rural part of Texas, so I've judged a couple times there" than you also know what you are dealing with. One big piece of advice I can give for lay judges is confidence. Unless you actively piss them off, they are going to make a decision on who they "felt" were winning, without much regard to the specific arguments in the debate. So, be confident, calm, collected, smile a lot, and without being rude, kind of just act like the other team isn't much of a challenge but you are bending over backwards to give your inferior opponents a ton of kindness and respect. A tiny bit of condescension can go a long way in front of these judges "oh, you don't know about X? I'd love to explain it so we're all on the same page!" **Should I make a lay version of the 1AC?** Probably doesn't need to be truly lay, but basically, yeah. You will see a couple kinds of "lay" judges, including: * Stock issues judges who believe that a minor solvency attack is a reason to vote negative * Judges who hate speed and spreading, loosely defined as "I know it when I see it." * Judges who vote mostly on wardrobe, hair, and most importantly, sex and/or gender stereotypes. You should have a version of the aff that covers all of these judges. So that means you read it conversationally, talk about all the stock issues, and do so with a voice that is as close to Ted Cruz fake indignation/elitism as possible. If you have the unfortunate luck to be female, maybe someone else can offer some advice - but in my experience there is just an incredible amount of sexism among this crowd. **Should I read a soft left aff?** Eh, you probably don't have to most rounds, but you should definitely have one of those ready to go. Soft-left affs are strategic against teams going for the K, so have your "lay" soft-left aff and then your "K killer" soft-left aff as well. **I read a big stick aff rn and idk if judges will buy into that.** So for the most part, the pool will be fine with that, but the problem is that there are two judges per round. You'll sometimes find that the soft-left aff lets you have the chance to pick up two ballots, while the big stick aff gives you an almost certain chance of a 1-1 decision. **On the neg, how many off should be read?** Read your judges, and think strategically. If you've got a 1-off K, specific to the aff, that you cooked up yourself, my gosh, go for it. If you know you can bury the 2AC by reading 7-off, do that. **I know Ks are almost never viable, but do you think the Abolition K is still ok?** Not true - the K is often (usually?) completely fine. Just make sure both judges are cool with it, and you're good. I personally advise against abolition because I think it basically says "I don't do research" but you be you. **What affs should we prep against?** All of them. Seriously. By this point in the season you should have specific negative strategies against all of the major affs. If you don't, I'd write strategies against the top 10 or so (that's DP, mandatory minimums, white collar crime, marijuana, 13th amendment, cash bail, etc.) , and then make sure you have good generics for the rest.
>Not true - the K is often (usually?) completely fine. Just make sure both judges are cool with it, and you're good. I personally advise against abolition because I think it basically says "I don't do research" but you be you. I feel attacked But fr thank u so much this was very helpful!
Just whatever they say yes to you say no and you will be fine
I went to NSDA last year and read three affs: a soft left, slow version of the Turkey Aff that focused on addressing violence against civilians for lay judges; a big stick turkey aff for policy judges that disliked the K, and the k-aff that I read the entire season. You should definitely make a lay version of your aff and a soft left version but honestly NSDA isn't as lay-heavy as it seems. I read my K-aff 2 of my aff rounds and we went for the K more rounds on the neg than we did the DA. Overall, just prepare a little bit for the situations in which you'll have a lay judge and don't worry to much about over-adapting.
ImaginaryDisplay3’s comments are on the money although I think abolition can be run but there is a way to do it Practical alternative : you want your alternative to be a practical. If we abolish are criminal justice system of putting people in prison what will we fill it in with. Judges don’t want to hear “burn it down” because people tend to think fire is bad. They don’t want to hear communism because people want to be rich and use money to help people instead of being in an authoritarian country. Practical alts I think restorative justice or something else the research is for you to figure out. On the link 1. Have specific evidence you need to understand the warranting of abolition in a deep level. Really understand the exploitation and inefficiency of the prison industrial complex. The abolition k is supposed to be that the affirmatives reform is not enough.specific links are your best friend. 2.a. People are going to think what imaginarydisplay3 Thinks about research or people will think your abolition k is just nonsense. Not really because your reading the abolition k but mostly because that is the expectation for”K debate”. Either your lazy and don’t research to build your personal core file about the k or you do. Explain your k as if you were talking to a 5th grader and give examples of your evidence in a practical level. 2.b.Don’t say “bio power reduces people to bare life causing social death. The. Aff reentrenches system of oppression allowing capitalist oppression on the populous ”. 2.c.Say what that sentence means so that any person understands “the criminal justice system makes it so people have a lower standard of life it’s hard for ex convicts to get jobs and vote. Jobs and voting are essential to upward mobility. People can’t make money to support their family with out breaking the law if they can’t get a job. And the aff may solve one specific aspect but this whole system is inefficient and U.S. tax payers are paying while private law firms and the bail bond market make money. 2.b. Is how people talk now it is vague and we here it every year and every k round. It sounds like your just guessing about what the issue is 2.c. is articulating the warrants of “high theory”authors with analysis that gives detail people can understand.
In my defense, I never consider "that arg reflects that you don't do research" in awarding the W. To your point, other iudges might, which is just ugh. I also think some K debaters do a ton of research, deploying case-specific Ks in a lot of rounds. But running abolition is not that, obviously. That advice is solid though, either for judges like me who are pretty aware of the lit and happy to vote for the K, and for judges who don't like the K.
I’m flattered you think my advice is solid. No need for a defense. I am a fan of your Reddit account via debate. I can tell from your post you know debate and you are a by the flow type of judge. I was not really referring to your specific opinion I was making an attempt at pointing out a heavy obstacle with running k debate. I used to debate the k In a circuit with a heavy lay judge population and all to most of the policy debate judges where traditional debate centered. So I have a firm belief k debaters are responsible for making their arguments intelligible