Tidhar,+Navot

I debated for four years. I coach a lot and judge fairly frequently. I cannot judge Walt Whitman and Monta Vista.

My paradigm can best be summarized as minimum intervention – my RFD will attempt to minimize the amount of work that I have to do. I do not exclude arguments based off their content. In general, do whatever got you to the big dance. There is one exception: if the AC tells me to operate under a competing worldview/value comparison/whatever other names people have come up with paradigm, I will happily do so with minimal (if any) justifications needed. I will of course listen to arguments by the negative as to why I should adopt a different paradigm. You will be fighting an uphill battle if you respond to such an ac with "gotta prove the res true". While I am hesitant to put this in the paradigm (as it is potentially an act of intervention i guess), I am tired of silly norms in the activity and think that judges should do something to move it in a better direction. As much as I dislike a prioris and the like, if the affirmative concedes or self-imposes a truth burden, they should be forced to defend the logical consequence of that framework.
 * Short paradigm (read this if you want to decide to strike me):**

I enter the round assuming that my role as a judge is to 1) decide which standard to adopt and 2) vote for the debater who wins the most comparative offense back to that standard. Asserting that your standard is a prerequisite will not cut it. I dislike non-reciprocal burden standards on a theoretical level and logical tests on an evaluative level. I vote on them regularly, but think that is because affirmatives are not making good theoretical and epistemological arguments about why I shouldn’t.
 * Long paradigm (read this if you want to adapt well):**

Regarding the second, I have coached and judged this topic since the beginning and am familiar with the jargon and concepts. So let slip the dogs of war.

Feel free to break away from the traditional paradigm of LD rounds in whatever way you want except for: speaker points, speech times, and win-loss. Those who do so in a creative, interesting, and intellectually intriguing manner will be rewarded with higher speaker points. This obviously requires you to rearticulate the role of the ballot and even debate itself. Negatives that encounter such a position should be ready to defend a conception of debate that mandates competitive equity, not simply assert that debate should be fair.


 * Argumentative biases:**

1) Although its no secret that I like critical arguments, I don’t hack for them. My main concern is with how well you argue them. Poorly run critiques are just as, if not more, annoying than poorly constructed stock arguments.

2) I have yet to vote on a critique of speed or complex rhetoric. This reflects my familiarity with speed and complex literature. I could vote on these positions but most attempts to present them have been unpersuasive.

3) I tend to think most micro-politics / discourse arguments are poorly warranted. If you want me to vote for them, you need to explain the efficacy and rationale for using my ballot as a tool. If done well, they can be very persuasive.

4) I have no problem with the impact of nihilism in principle. I find that most debaters have weak claims for why nihilism comes first and why a part of their opponents position necessarily devolves into nihilism.

5) The contra-positive of the resolution is not the negative's burden. Saying so is not a very good idea.

6) I don't particularly enjoy profanity in the general course of the round. Try to avoid it. However, if your evidence contains offensive language (and a lot of interesting philosophy does), I have no problem with it. I guess the test is whether profanity contributes anything to the discussion.

7) Unlike most judges, I think patently offensive positions can actually be pretty amusing (in the context of a debate round). Debaters are forced to argue things they don't believe in all the time. If encounter racism or patriarchy (or anti-semitism) arguments, and you have warranted arguments that impact turn them, feel free to run them. Obviously there are a lot of ways to defeat such a strategy, but if you think you can win it, go for it. If executed poorly, it would probably result in a deduction of speaks. If executed well (and with some degree of taste), it minimally will not harm your speaks. As a caveat, I think there is a distinction between a racist argument, and an offensive racial term. Please don't use the latter.


 * Evaluative preferences:**

1) Debaters need to do a better job weighing and comparing offense and more importantly frameworks. In the likely event that there are competing extensions with no comparison, I defer to the temporally prior argument (unless argued otherwise). Additionally, it behooves debates to acknowledge the areas where their opponent is winning and explain why it is not important.

2) I think good fast debate is better than good slow debate, which is better than bad fast debate. I enjoy judging debaters who display technical and strategic command of the flow. These two preferences are usually an indicator of a license to drop a shit-storm. I would much prefer that speed and technical mastery be put to enhancing substantive argumentation. Make the affirmative’s life difficult with substantive and layered responses, not absurd pre-standards arguments.

3) I find that so-called big picture debate often ignores the intricacies of the round. In my mind, the big-picture examines how various aspects of the line-by-line interact and synthesizes those various arguments. Big-picture debate should identify the clear areas of conflict in the round and resolve them with specific references to the line-by-line. It should pay attention to how arguments interact and compare these interactions. It is imperative that debaters take into account the offense their opponent is winning and explain to me how it interacts with their own offense through weighing and preclusion. If they don’t, I am forced to sift through various arguments and reconstruct their interaction according to my own intuition (that is, intervene) which necessarily carries the risk that I will reconstruct the round in a way that you don’t like.

5) I get annoyed when people start their speech with a long sign-post. Unless the round requires multiple sheets of paper, just tell me where you will start and then sign-post explicitly from there.

6) Conceivably, I will not vote on an argument I don’t comprehend. This has yet to be an issue. I will call for cases in the event that my decision rests on something too specific to be on my flow (like the exact rhetoric of a spike) or to confirm an interpretation of an argument. Debaters who want for me to call for a card should tell me why.

7) Given the structural problem with new 1AR positions in response to the NC, I tend to err neg on such debates unless told otherwise. After the round, I usually ask myself what the negative might have said in response to the 2AR based solely off the logical extension of arguments in the NR. If this line of reasoning is fruitless or requires too much intervention I will affirm.

8) In the event of a dispute about something like how much prep-time is left, or if a timer breaks, and so on, I leave it up to the debaters to reach an agreement.


 * Theoretical biases:**

1) WEIGH BETWEEN COMPETING THEORY ARGUMENTS. So many debaters allow theory oriented rounds to devolve into two uncompared abuse stories. Often the result is one debater (often the one that is on balance losing) claiming that theory should be a wash. Weighing between standards and the nature of the abuse is a good route to me voting for you on theory and much higher speaks.

2) Advocacies should have texts. More often than not, the resolution and its converse are sufficient. In the event that you introduce an advocacy external to, or more specific than, the resolution (i.e. Plans, Ks with alternatives, counterplans, etc), you should have a text. I will not intervene against those who don’t, but will be sympathetic to theoretical objections.

3) I have no problem voting on potential abuse as long as there is a reason why the potential for abuse is sufficient to pull the trigger.

4) Multiple/conditional counterplans are more likely than not theoretically illegitimate. Run theory against them.

5) I think pics are theoretically legitimate, non-textual Pics are not.

6) Conditionality (in the LD sense of the word) is, more often than not, unpersuasive. I have a high threshold for voting on these arguments so running them in front of me is a poor time tradeoff.

7) I don’t find myself erring either way in RVI debates. My willingness to vote on such argumentation (and other time-skew/no-risk issue bad positions) is directly related to the degree of abuse present in the NC.

8) I find ‘reasonability’ to be a persuasive argument against senseless topicality positions. Obviously such argumentation must be presented and justified in round. If you want me to pull the trigger on T and drop a case that seems to fit the topic area, you need to do a good job articulating an actual abuse story or explain why topicality is about competing interpretations.

9) Arguments about intellectual dishonesty are on balance unverifiable. I am unlikely to vote on them unless there is a clear violation. Debaters should have full citations and versions of cards. I should be able to find the piece of evidence with minimal effort from your citation. Ellipses in analytic evidence is not especially problematic. Ellipses in cards that make factual claims usually are. In such cases, I'm usually persuaded by "reject the argument not the debater".

10) If you run a CP, specify whether it’s conditional, unconditional, or dispositional. Do not claim that your cp is dispositional if you don’t know what it means and just want to avoid condo bad.

11) Intrinsic and severence permutations are usually illegit. A lot of it depends on the nature of the CP/K.

12) I tend to think that presumption lies with the negative because the affirmative should always be able to generate a risk of offense in the 2ar. I will only vote on presumption if any evaluation of the round would require an absurd amount of intervention for me to vote for either side. I do not recall the last time this happened.

I will disclose. I tend not to listen intently to cross-examination, although if you request I will. This is not a license to make up lies, because I pay enough attention to notice them. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions (I am sure that you can get my contact info from someone in the community).
 * Random information:**

Speaker points will reflect (1) how well I think you should do at the tournament based on your performance and (2) how difficult your performance was. A good performance against a good debater is more difficult than a good performance against a mediocre debater. If you run a storm of "a-prioris" do not expect higher than a 28.5. I use a 20-30 scale. You will not get anything lower than a 27 unless your performance included a confuence of problematic factors (blippy extensions, unwarranted arguments, a prioirs, new arguments, misrepresenting in round claims). I highly doubt that anyone at ToC will get anything less than a 26. Risks will be rewarded. However do not try something weird if you are not committed to doing it well. I have never seen a debate so rude that I was compelled to dock speaker points.

I think LD formalities are silly and don’t hold debaters to them. Laptops are fine.