Buehler,+Mitchell

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas Debate throughout high school both locally and nationally. I went to two separate debate camps during that time, one of which being NSD. I graduated last year, and am therefore deeply familiar with the current form of LD.

Super Short Version (a.k.a. Melanie Becker Version): I am 100% tab, and will be happy to evaluate absolutely any argument or style, provided that your conclusion logically follows from your premises (unless you'd like to debate against logic, which most likely won't work, but you can try). Please explain your arguments thoroughly, because I vote on warrants but can't do so if I don't hear or understand them. I strongly believe that I should be a 1 for everyone.

Short Version: My goal as a judge is to be completely tabula rasa. I think debate should come down to who is the better debater, and I think it is unacceptable, and harmful to debate as an activity intended to evaluate skill, for people to insert their completely subjective preferences into a round such that it blinds them from selecting the debater who actually did a better job. My aim is to vote for the debater who more effectively justifies their position and demonstrates the failure of their opponent to do the same, whatever the positions in question may be, and with no regard given to how I feel about them (which should not be difficult, as I am simply not an emotional person, so I probably //won't// feel about your arguments). I will vote on absolutely any argument that has a warrant, no matter how counterintuitive it may be, if it is won. I find sarcasm, sass, and the like entertaining, but please do not take that as an excuse to be entirely cruel. My only major weakness is that I am not great at flowing, so please be very clear and explain yourself thoroughly. I flow warrants, not necessarily author names (I'll try to flow author names but will probably fail because I'm more interested in not missing your actual arguments), so when extending arguments, don't read a bunch of names and expect me to have any idea what you are talking about. Do not assume that I know ahead of time what your case says, as I only read two authors in any kind of detail throughout my entire debate career, and I am definitely not keeping up with the topic literature.

Also, please feel free to email your speeches to mwbuehler@comcast.net so I can read along (though it is not required). Spreading cards upon cards of esoteric material off of a computer screen simply isn't how real-world speeches work, so I think it is unproductive for me to limit my ability to get your arguments down as part of some attempt to promote speaking skills in an activity that is so far gone from it to begin with.

Long Version: As you probably know by now, I am very very tab. I genuinely enjoy watching any type of debate so long as it is debated well. However, there are some things I enjoy more than others, and other matters that require clarification in spite of my being tab, and I will devote this section to clarifying those matters. The best thing you can do is over-explain. The more you tell me why you are winning, the easier it is for me to vote for you. I do not plan on having any defaults, so if you are not sufficiently clear, I will try to evaluate the round according to what both debaters seem to assume. While I think I am pretty good at psychoanalyzing others, if you do make me psychoanalyze you in order to figure out your arguments, there is a chance that I could be wrong and you will not like the result. Thus, please be clear or I'll be forced to make assumptions and make my own connections. Now for specific matters:

__Things That Aren't Necessarily Related to the Arguments__
 * I do not care if you stand or sit.
 * I do not care where you position yourself relative to me, so long as I can see you.
 * I do not care if you call yourself "we" or something along those lines.
 * Introductory quotes that aren't actually pertinent make me cringe.
 * I do not have dogmatic rules regarding when prep time should start or end. Please do not abuse this.
 * I am unlikely to ever call for evidence, as I prefer to evaluate based upon what was articulated by the debaters in the round.
 * I have a very low threshold for extensions, but you would do well to thoroughly explain what you are extending anyway just to make certain I understand its implication and evaluate it correctly; however, if its implication is painfully obvious and it was dropped, you merely need to tell me to extend the claim, repeating the warrant is unnecessary (e.g. "Extend the resolved a priori. It was conceded.").
 * I will tell you to slow down or be clear as much as needed, but if I do say it, it means that I am really desperate because I detest interrupting speeches, so you would be wise to slow down and clear up very substantially if I do say something.

__Policy-Style Arguments__
 * While I will vote for you if you win your position, I am generally not a fan of people just reading off of their computer screens. I think debate is an intellectual activity, and so I want to see you actually thinking about what you are reading and making intelligent arguments from it. Don't just rely on what other people say, because then it's like those people are winning the round, but I can't vote for them, I have to vote for //you//, so //you// should be the winner. Evidence is good, but I am not going to award high speaker points to someone who is clearly not making their own arguments. Extrapolate, spin, be rhetorically proficient, etc. I say this not because I think Policy-style debate is inherently less intellectual than other styles, but because it is most common for debaters of this style to rely too much on other people's words and to not make their own arguments. Debaters who I think did very well with this type of debate (and in extremely different ways from each other) who you should try to emulate are Varad Agarwala and Raffi Piliero.
 * Because these debates are based on empirical data rather than being merely conceptual, I can't just reason my way to a good decision if you aren't clear, so it is vitally important that you explain your arguments thoroughly, are flowable, and WEIGH. If you can conceptually summarize your data-based position well, I will certainly be impressed, and will have an easier time evaluating it.
 * I am good with any sort of Plan, CP, DA, or combination, no matter how abusive or odd.

__Philosophical Framework Arguments__
 * I thoroughly enjoy philosophy, and think that philosophical justification for your arguments is a necessity. Even if you're reading a heavy util case, you should have some justification for util. While, if no one points out your lack of a justification, I won't vote you down, if your opponent does say something akin to, "No philosophical reason is given for why util is good. Therefore, disregard the entire case since we have no reason to care about its impacts," I am going to be highly inclined to vote against you. For me, justifying things logically is what debate is all about. You don't have to read a dense piece of analytic philosophy, but I expect some reason to prefer your framework.
 * If you do choose to read dense analytic philosophy, that is wonderful, but remember that I've only read two authors (who I will not name, because they are extremely obscure and I'd like to be impressed by people who discover them on their own), so do not expect me to understand your framework ahead of time. I am good at understanding things, though, so as has been a theme in this paradigm, if you explain well, you will be fine.
 * I consider skepticism to be an actual philosophical position (and one of the few that I deeply understand, but not from one of my two authors), and will evaluate it as such.

__Kritiks__
 * Kritiks have a lot of variation. Some are Policy-esque, in which case my thoughts on policy arguments apply, and some are philosophical, in which case my thoughts on philosophical arguments apply. Stylistically, the only real difference between these sorts of Ks and the cases described above is structure. While they are very different content-wise, I am fine with all types of content, so that doesn't change anything about my evaluation. I will write about more unusual sorts of Ks in separate sections below.
 * Kritiks tend to be murkier than other types of arguments. Please be sure to understand your K well so you can explain it to me well, and be doubly sure to provide me with a clear and justified evaluative mechanism (i.e. a clearly articulated role-of-the-ballot).

__Non-Topical Ks and Topicality__
 * Entirely fine. I do not have a bias regarding which comes first (T or K), so you will have to have that debate for me.
 * I will probably be very amused if you read an absurd Topicality shell (e.g. "The United States is a landmass, therefore cannot have moral obligations or enact policy, therefore negate."). I really love semantics, as I will expand upon in a later section, so if you want to have a definition debate, please do it. Note that loving definition debates is not the same as thinking Topicality is a good thing, however. Again, it is an issue I do not take a stance on.
 * I really like Deleuze (no, this not one of my two authors, either) and other "high theory" arguments, but you would do well to explain yourself thoroughly.

__Micropol, Identity Arguments, Narratives, Pre-Fiat Arguments, and the like__
 * Also fine. Just be sure to have a clear reason why your identity should count as offense, or I may be left rather confused. I generally find these positions very difficult to defend as they seem very susceptible to theory arguments, but if you can successfully rebut the theory arguments or explain why your K outweighs, I will certainly vote for you, because again, I don't take a stance on T vs K. Note that this does not mean that I have a higher threshold for voting on these arguments. I don't. I am simply warning you about what I perceive to be a potential weakness regarding them so you do not fall into that weakness. Although I am ultimately persuaded by logic, I actually can and will vote on emotional arguments if you win a reason why that should count as offense. Do not be afraid to read emotional presentations in front of me. All I ask if that you don't devolve to a total reliance on emotion in order to avoid engaging in rational argumentation.
 * Ks of Debate are also fine. I don't take a stance on the issue of whether Debate is good or bad, as I have had perpetually mixed feelings about it myself, so I would probably really enjoy watching this argument unfold.

__Theory__
 * Broadly defined as "meta debate- debating about debate in any context from standard fairness discussions to the role of the judge to the constitutive nature of the activity to the legitimacy of anything that occurs pre fiat and in the 'real world'," this is probably what I am most qualified to judge. The reason for that is I have barely read anything substantive, so will probably learn a lot of things for the first time when hearing your arguments, and only have a few minutes to consider them before having to make a decision. However, Lincoln-Douglas Debate is something I have deeply analyzed to the extent that a framework debater analyzes Kant. As I said at the top, I deeply understand the activity, and if you're going to ultimately debate about the activity in some way, then I think I will be //extremely// well-suited to evaluate that. I probably invested so much time into thinking about theoretical arguments because I was too lazy to do actual research, so spent much of my time thinking of how I could spin the nature of the event itself to preclude other people's arguments, and come up with arguments that did not require me to do any actual research myself. Do not take that little anecdote to mean that I will give you any sort of advantage if you tell me that you didn't do any research. I don't vote for people just because they mirror my style of debate.
 * Theory in the traditional shell format is just as fine as everything described above. While I do not have a bias in favor of it, as it is an issue I never had to research and could therefore just think about, I do understand it better than I understand any substantive position except for those that I read. However, if you are not a theory debater, do not be discouraged, because if you are, say, a K debater against a theory debater, if you read reasons why the K comes before theory, I will be able to evaluate that just as well as I will be able to evaluate the theory shell because that is a //meta-debate// issue, and, as said above, I consider myself an expert on all meta-debate, not just standard fairness-based theory shells.
 * I have no problem whatsoever with any type of shell you want to read, no matter how frivolous. Jack Wareham's theory shell saying that the judge should vote people down for wearing suits was one of my favorites.
 * I do not take a stance on disclosure, and will evaluate it like any other argument.
 * I do not take a stance on paradigm issues, or issues such as meta-theory.
 * Please slow down on your interp to make sure that I get it.
 * Just as is the case with Policy-style debate, a theory debate can have a lot to do with specific details, and I may not be able to reason my way to a good decision if you are unclear. Thus, explain well, be flowable, and please WEIGH.

__A Prioris, Tricks, etc.__
 * As I think Debate is ultimately an intellectual activity, I really like these arguments, as I think they show cleverness. I will vote on absolutely any a priori, no matter how absurd, so long as it possesses a warrant (e.g. the Resolved a priori, and even worse ones I do not want to give away because I want you to come up with them yourselves). I will probably award higher speaker points to people who actually manage to win a ridiculous a priori if it is contested, because I think it shows immense argumentative talent to win a position that is obviously incorrect (note that the speaker point boost doesn't apply if your opponent simply drops it, because then I won't know if you're actually capable of beating back responses to it and therefore cannot be as impressed).
 * Generally, I really enjoy abusive strategies, and find them hilarious. The more unfair you want to be, the better. Of course, I am going to vote on theory if that part of the debate is won by your opponent, so be careful, but as expressed above, if you are able to win that you are fair when you clearly aren't, or if you can win that fairness is not useful in a competitive activity, I will probably be highly impressed with your ability to counter arguments that are obviously true. Thus, if it wasn't clear yet, I am very strongly in favor of tech>truth.
 * My favorite a prioris are usually semantic, as I enjoy definition debates and, as someone who studied and used semantics when I debated, am very qualified to evaluate them. My love of semantics means that I take things extremely literally. While I find that to be very useful in a judge for the most part, there is a bad side to it in the event that debaters do not want me to take things literally. So, if I am not supposed to take something literally, please be clear about that even if you don't think it is necessary for the debate, or I may do something such as evaluate a theory debate according to the text of the interp when you wanted me to evaluate it according to the spirit of the interp.

__Controversial Stuff__ My relative lack of emotion leads me to have far more tolerance for certain practices than other judges. I do not view myself as a moral authority or an educator on the grounds that I do not think many of us judges are truly qualified to take such positions, and that many moral assessments are subjective, so for us to take a position of moral authority would entail us imposing subjective beliefs on others, which I find problematic. My only job is to adjudicate between arguments to select who did the better debating in a given round, no matter what I feel about the debaters or the content of their arguments. While, if you win a reason for me to view the round through a different lens (such as that of an educator), I will do so, my ability to adopt a different view is still ultimately contingent upon my starting role as an adjudicator, as I first have to decide that you have won that I should be an educator before I decide to do so. Please do not let this worry you. I will not let my views of judging bias me against role-of-the-judge arguments that contravene my views, as to do so would be to actually contravene my views. That said, here are some controversial facts about my judging:
 * I do not give special weight to issues of "evidence ethics", and will simply evaluate them like any other argument on the flow, so if you really want me to vote someone down for clipping cards, you had best warrant why it comes before everything else very well.
 * I do not think debaters are under any obligation to cater to novices or lay debaters. While I will probably award higher speaker points to someone who does attempt to make the round educational as I think it takes more skill to simplify a position and still win it, I do not require debaters to slow down to accommodate their opponents, and will not penalize a debater who does not do so.
 * I am profoundly unpersuaded by the argument that skepticism should be voted against on the grounds that it is morally offensive. I think what Kris Wright wrote on the subject is quite good, so I will put it here: " I think it worth noting here that I deeply dislike debaters to give mere blips or ad hominems as a "good enough reason" for me to disregard relatively-well developed arguments. The absurd claim that making an argument about moral skepticism should be disregarded because it is morally bad is a perfect example of begging the question and, therefore, is not a response at all. Given that this "strategy" must ask me to completely intervene, as it makes an impact to a (moral) standard that the skeptical argument substantively refutes, I will disregard this discursive objection entirely and give an RFD heavily focused on why the "strategy of moral outrage" against skepticism is super-duper shitty: **any argument with well developed warrants deserves to be taken seriously and responded to in kind. Anything less than that is intellectually (and in many cases ethically) objectionable.**" To clarify, I think that a K of skep could function, but not if all it says is "skep is evil". If you are going to read a K of skep, I expect to see some grander reason why I should vote against the position. For example, if you substantively justify why oppression (or whatever your K is predicated on) is objectively bad even if the rest of the skep framework strands, or if you show that the K is a prerequisite to the skep argument, or make a role-of-the-judge argument, or something along those lines, I could very well vote for you. All I am saying I will not be inclined to vote on is the self-defeating argument that I should vote against skep because skep is evil. If you happen to make the self-defeating argument anyway and your opponent does not answer it, I will probably vote for you, but neither of you are likely to get high speaker points, because you made a self-defeating argument, and your opponent failed to recognize the obvious fact that your argument was self-defeating.
 * I think some teasing between opponents is good. I like witty condescending remarks, sarcasm, and things of that nature, as I think they show intellectual superiority, and can be entertaining. I would say that I have a MUCH higher tolerance for this sort of thing than most judges on the circuit, who make it a point of saying "be nice" a lot in their paradigms. However, it should be noted that I do have some limits when it comes to these things. Ultimately, I think whatever you say should be said in good taste. Whatever mockery you would like to make should appear justified. If you are clearly losing an argument, you don't get to stand up and act super arrogant about an argument you can't defend, as that will look really silly. Also, if your opponent is the most polite person on Earth, you don't get to just start slamming them with insults. I think teasing and condescension works best when it reasonably escalates. I think it is easiest for this to happen in CX by making fun of bad answers to questions, making fun of bad questions, or whatever you would want to do to troll each other and be perceptually dominant in CX (which is arguably my favorite part of the debate round, as it is when the debaters get to interact, which allows for extremely entertaining exchanges to take place, personality to shine through, and a more direct clash of intellects). An example of this happening in speeches might start with a debater saying something typical, such as, "[Name] made a huge mistake in the 1N! You shouldn't have dropped this!" Then, in the next speech, since the opponent was personally called out, said opponent would then be justified in escalating by making a condescending remark about the first speaker, and so forth. That is basically what I mean by reasonable escalation. I love watching debaters be sassy with each other, but it has to appear justified. Also, regardless of what occurs, I do expect debaters to maintain civility, and I also expect sensitive issues to be treated differently than less sensitive issues. Two debaters having an insult-fest over their semantic a prioris is fine. A skep debater condescending to another debater about their personal narrative is almost definitely not going to be fine. In short, I am more tolerant than almost every other judge on the circuit, but be tasteful. I am also good with unspoken displays of dominance, such as packing up during your opponent's 2AR, but I will be highly displeased if you do something that prevents me from hearing your opponent's argument, such as interrupting them while they are speaking.
 * You can be as shady as you want in CX (e.g. pretending not to know what an a priori is). I think it is the responsibility of your opponent to ask strong questions and pin you down, and if you are creative enough to shift out of very clear and thorough questions, then I will be impressed because that indicates that you are smart. However, be warned that your opponent can read theory on shady CX practices which I am liable to vote on, but if you think you are capable of technically winning that debate, then you're good to go.
 * This isn't controversial in the same sense that everything else is, but I flow similarly to Paul Zhou- I do not keep a spatial flow but instead flow each speech straight down. I do this because I think it minimizes judge intervention, and because it maximizes my ability to write your arguments down since I don't have to waste time searching for where to put a given argument. This means that you will have to do a lot of interaction and explanation for me.

__Short and Convenient Speaker Point Guide__
 * I will try to average at 28, but there is a reasonable chance of that going down to 27.5. I will probably not go lower than 26, and 30s will be extremely rare. I have considered methods of making speaker point ratings more objective (e.g. awarding points in a series of categories, then taking the average of the categories, or at least defining what I think each point-range means), but for now in this early stage, I will probably award them as a general measure of how well you debated, in addition to what is described in the lists below, which are basically just bits and pieces taken from everything written above about what I like and dislike in all types of debates.
 * Things that get you low points:
 * Just reading off of your computer screen without making your own arguments.
 * Making it difficult for me to flow.
 * Boringness.
 * Lack of logical justification for your points and/or underlying assumptions.
 * Abhorrent cruelty.
 * Perceptual weakness.
 * Things that get you high points:
 * Strong conceptual analysis of whatever it is that you are reading, such that it makes the round easy to evaluate and demonstrates intelligence.
 * Creative arguments and positions.
 * Sarcasm, sass, wit, and generally keeping me entertained.
 * Perceptual dominance.
 * Doing things that are difficult (e.g. winning a point that is obviously false).
 * Good cross-examination skills.