Polsky,+Elliot

I debated LD at Saint Thomas Academy for the four years of high school from 2009-13. I debated on both national circuit and local circuit with the prestigious Kelton Anderson.
 * Background:**


 * __Judge Philosophy:__**

There are no arguments for which I will not vote on face. I think if some arguments are super obviously immoral or bad, the fact that they are so immoral should demonstrate itself in that the arguments are easy to beat. Individuals, however, should be able to explore whatever ideas they like. With that said, I think debaters ought to run cases that are somewhat believable. Just running weird stuff to surprise opponents won’t make me drop you, but it will contribute to lower speaker points. I know people can’t quite run what they actually believe all the time (if ever) but debaters should still try to run stuff that they could conceive of themselves believing. Substance that I don't like: narratives, stuff about patriarchy, discourse, ontological argument for God, wipe out.
 * Substance:**
 * Ideally, I want to see a well-warranted philosophical, framework-heavy debate about whether the resolution is true.**

I’m fine with speed. Go ahead. I’m not going pretend that you //can’t// go too fast for me, but if you are going too fast, I will let you know. In most cases, me letting you know you were going too fast will not affect your speaker points. However, going to fast for me //will// affect your speaker points if you were going too fast either (a) without need because you were so obviously beating the opponent anyway or (b) without the ability to do so (i.e. you are unclear because you are trying to go faster than you can).
 * Speed:**

Theory is necessary at times and can even be enjoyable to watch when it is clean and adds interesting levels to the round. Don’t use it without purpose on poor defenseless opponents. If you do, at least be really nice and explain it well for them in c-x because you’re probably going to win anyway. At least make the loss teach them something new. For the most part don’t run multiple theory shells. Only do so if the abuse is really obvious and really bad. I default drop the debater since it’s usually necessary to check the abuse. I default competing interps. Meta-theory is just as justifiable or prone to its own abuse as regular theory. I’ll change my defaults, however, if an argument is made against them in round.
 * Theory:**

I’m not usually a fan. Philosophical education is important. If you run a plan, don’t brush aside the framework debate. I don’t like the topicality/theory util justifications. I also don’t like silly extinction impacts. If you avoid these two things, the plan could be great. Specific stats and research comparison is good.
 * Plans:**

I’m not a fan. Usually I think they are pretty unwarranted and exaggerated. I will vote on them if they win, but I will have low standards for answering. If you want higher speaker points with me, only run pre-fiat kritiks if it is still very clearly related to the resolution and responds to extraordinary abuse/offensiveness by the opponent. If the kritik could be run in almost every round, I probably won’t find the argument very convincing.
 * Kritiks:**

I see the case level and standard as something that proves the resolution true. So, if you want to run an a priori, explain how the a priori competes with the case level. Why is it I should buy your shorter argument proving the resolution true/false over the longer argument (case & standard) proving the resolution true/false? I will only vote on something if you give a warrant. With a prioris, then, you will need to warrant why it comes first and why the argument is true. So, I expect these to be a little longer than they typically are in debate rounds. Also, it will hurt your speaker points if your a priori isn’t clearly tagged as such in the constructive.
 * A prioris:**

Skep is not really believable in the real world. So, it isn’t valuable to run in debate. Thus, while I will vote on skep if it wins, it won’t earn high speaker points (especially if it is the main position, as opposed to a strategic fallback). I also want you to tell me where skep belongs in the debate round. I default to assuming it is on the case level only. This means I default to not allowing you to sign my ballot. However, if skep is made on a theoretical level, then the situation changes. If you are the one who initiated the fateful skep, I will make sure to lower your speaker points substantially in the TAB room—though I’ll leave you as the winner if you do sign the ballot. Various forms of quasi-skeptical arguments are much preferable to real skep. I would rather see you taking a positive position than just denying everything. For example, you could run emotivism and, by doing so, refute moral obligations—including the one in the resolution. You won’t be punished for these sorts of positions as you would with stock skep arguments.
 * Skepticism:**

I give speaker points for strategy, verbal presentation, quality of substance, entertainment value, and cleanliness of the speeches. I want to enjoy the round and understand what is going on.
 * Speaker points:**
 * 30 –** //This is perfect//. You know your case perfectly. You are well warranted and perfectly easy to understand. Your case is interesting. (That doesn’t necessarily mean weird, just __well warranted__ and __philosophical__). You don’t make any big strategic errors, and you get your opponent to do exactly what you want. You are funny.
 * 29 –** //This is excellent.// Everything from 30 except lacking in one or two areas. You mostly do exactly what you need to do, but make a few mistakes or aren’t very interesting. A perfectly done util-impact/Rawls/theory/kritik debate will probably earn a 29 or 29.5. If you want a 30, make it philosophical.
 * 28 –** //This is above average.// You have a stock position or make one substantial mistake in round. You are slightly unclear or signpost poorly.
 * 27 –** //This is average.// You have a decent stock case. You make several mistakes. You are unclear or inefficient. You don’t make too much clash or you only respond to taglines.
 * 26 –** //This is poor.// You make a lot of mistakes. You don’t signpost. Your case is incoherent or has really obvious problems that you aren’t prepared to answer. You don’t respond to your opponent.
 * 25 or less –** //This is offensive.// You are unsportsmanlike. You are rude to the opponent or are so offensively cocky that it makes everyone uncomfortable. If you are one of the best debaters, you know it, and you just beat up some novice opponent without trying to encourage them or make the loss teach them something constructive about debate.