Last changed on
Fri February 12, 2021 at 9:08 PM UTC
I debated for 3 years [LD] in High School for Pine View School in Florida, and I debated policy for NYU. I was the assistant debate coach at Collegiate School. I'm currently a criminal justice researcher / data scientist.
PUBLIC FORUM:
I'm a flow-focused judge and am more concerned with the argumentation that happens in a round, with clean extensions and a focus on providing the highest quality debate. I really look for, aside from well thought out and developed positions which tie back to a core thesis or framework, an understanding of debate as a platform and respecting the structure and underlying nature of how competitive debate works. I've seen a lot of people in PF try to extend through ink without addressing arguments, or picking up long-dropped arguments in their final speeches, and I'd really prefer that didn't happen. A good round, for me, shows a cohesion of thought and argumentation between partners whose roadmaps for winning the round are aligned.
Personally, I have very few feelings about what Public Forum is "supposed" to be, and I encourage a wide variety of voices and styles in all debate events. Coming from a more progressive debate tradition, I am fine with types of arguments that have not traditionally been seen in Public Forum, however, those non-traditional arguments often require frameworks and set ups that are often implicitly baked into events like Policy, and are not present in Public Forum. It's incumbent on you to, if you're planning on making those sorts of arguments, be prepared to provide theoretical backing or compelling argumentation for including them.
CX: My only other note is that I have an extremely strong preference for cross-ex to be a cross-examination, and not some sort of vehicle for evidence presentation. Asking your opponent "if they're aware" of some evidence you want to use later on is a poor use of time that could be used to ask clarifying questions or to set up argumentative traps. Watching someone get flustered or making someone upset because you're making arguments in CX rather than in your speech accomplishes little. While I don't flow CX, I will take notes on things that are admitted, and cross-ex is binding. Grand CX shouldn't be a yelling match, and I will fully tune out if you guys get too heated and I can't understand what you're saying. I'll give a few "clears" before then, though.
If you want more detailed stances I have on debate, you can read down for other events.
LINCOLN DOUGLAS:
I try to intervene as little as possible in the round, but I actively try to counteract how I feel. Here's what I specifically look for.
Framework: I'm open to any framework format, be it just a "standards", a burden analysis, value / value criterion, and everything else under the sun as long as I am given clear reasons to evaluate the round using that. I like both substance reasons and theoretic reasons. Make sure to weigh back to your framework though. If you're going to have framework clash, make sure that that you give me substantive weighing.
Impacts: I'm fine with most impacts as long as they link back to some evaluative standpoint, but make sure that if they're particularly big-stick impacts like extinction that you have well warranted internal links in your scenario. I'm receptive to analytic takeouts of poorly linked impact scenarios, so make sure that your link story is coherent and consistent. I really like impact calculus debates -- I also know I have a predisposition to weigh scope and probability over magnitude, but I actively try to counter-act that bias.
Philosophy: These are just pet peeves and won't really influence my decision, but there are very clear distinctions between ethics, meta-ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology. Namely, the last 3 have very little to do with what is ethical. Please keep this in mind when you're writing your arguments or trying to make analytic arguments. That being said, I am a big fan of analytic philosophy and much less of a fan of continental philosophy. What that means is that I will totally on board if you use people like Chalmers, Street, Osuka, Hare, and so forth. I have no problem evaluating arguments out of the continental tradition, but please make sure you're actually using the internal warrants found in the cards to advance those views rather than just relying on the cite. Just like with impact analysis, I'm receptive to analytic takeouts of internal link stories for philosophical frameworks.
Kritiks: Even though I'm not the biggest fan of continental philosophy / PoMo, I think that Ks are interesting and would like to listen to them, and even encourage them, especially if your opponent says things in the round that warrant K. That being said, there's a thick line between a securitization K or a non-violence K and a psycho-analytic Jungian K where you have to battle your Shadow via in-round poetry slams. I don't like vague alts on Ks, so "reject" alts don't do a lot for me unless they provide explicit mechanics by which rejection actually happens and pre-empt why you can't perm. I, personally, encourage running theory on these sorts of alts.
Theory: I don't default to any specific weighing mechanism if it isn't brought up. I think "strategic theory" is ok when there are some arguments that might be abusive, but if your violation is "her font is size 12 and not size 14" then I'm just going to auto-gut check on it, but that's really rare. "I meets" which are uncontested are terminal defense. A new application of "spirit of the interpretation" which is not brought up when the shell is presented will not be listened to. I don't default to competing interps or reasonability. I prefer drop the argument but if it is not clarified I will default to drop the debater. If you want to say "drop the argument" for strategic reasons, I'll be receptive to it. RVIs are fine, but have a higher standard to meet than other sorts of theory arguments; I will vote on potential abuse on theory, but not RVIs, which must demonstrate actual abuse. You don't need to warrant most standard theory voters, but in the event of theory weighing, it's useful to have them.
AFC: Please don't. I will not vote on it.
General notes:
- Speed is fine.
- I heavily penalize new arguments made in the last speech. It will generally cost you massive amounts of speaker points, and if the entire 2AR is new arguments, it will cost you the round.
- I don't vote on who speaks better, since this is a debate event. Don't try to go for speaking better or out speaking your opponent, because it won't work, please focus on substance.
- I evaluate speaker points on the criteria of originality, adaptability, clarity, and as a last ditch, persuasive ability.
- I don't care if you curse, as long as it is kept to a moderate amount. Make sure that you're still respectful to your opponent.
- You get two free "clears", after which I stop flowing and start docking speaker points.
- I don't really like pref or narratives, but as long as it's topical, it's fine. If you read a non-topical narrative, you need to have to have very compelling reasons to vote on it.
- Debate is fundamentally a persuasive event. Even though I prefer to always vote on the flow, and will absolutely give low speaker wins for people who are worse at persuasion but are technically more competent, some rounds ultimately ask judges to make adjudication based on impact calculus or weighing which isn't presented by the round. Ultimately, these rounds end up in whichever competing narrative the judge buys, which has a lot to do with the persuasive capacity of the debater. Make sure you avoid this pitfall; give clear breakdowns, weight your impacts, and provide the strategic decision calculi that you think will win you the round.
POLICY:
Paradigm:
I'm pretty tabula rasa, and you can pretty much run whatever the hell pleases you, in any framework of interpretation of what debate is. I generally default to legislator or some sort of cliche; I'll vote like the plan is actually going to passed. I love me some simulations.
T: I don't really care what argument you make on T as long as it actually makes sense. Extra-topicality is fine too, but just make sure you're clear where the AFF is being extra-topical. I don't care much for topicality being the only thing debated on the flow, however. If you're going to go for T, make sure that there's something else to try to keep me interested, as I find T kind of stale. I generally won't pull the trigger on T unless you can actually prove a violation.
K: I'm a philosophy major and I find hearing different philosophical-type arguments very interesting, however, make sure you know what you're actually saying. I might be familiar with some of your authors, but because there is always more to read, I can't be sure. Don't assume I know what you're talking about, and more importantly, don't try to misrepresent what the author is saying. If you're talking about Otherization, make sure you identify who is being Otherized. It's pretty annoying to hear a long ramble about how the plan Otherizes and then there's no impact calculus defining who is being Otherized and why I should care. Kritical Affs are kinda weird sometimes, but I'm cool with them. Finally: When you extend your K, make sure you explain it in terms that I'll be able to flow. I don't care what it says in your pre-written overview or on your tagline, make sure I instantly know where you're going with the extensions.
CP: Any type of counter plan is fine with me, just make sure you clarify how it competes with the plan. I think PICs are fine as long as you don't read 3 and then make bad "condo good" arguments.
Theory: I'm open to all theory, and I'm fairly receptive to abuse stories, as long as they are clear. However, theory still needs to be explained coherently, and you need to say why your interpretation is better than your opponents. Saying why your theory is good is fine, but make sure to explain why theirs is bad.
Performance: I like topical performance, but when you're reading a non-topical narrative, I don't really know what to do and probably won't evaluate it without very compelling reasons to do so.
