Burr,+Nicholas

Director of Forensics, Westwood High School 8+ years judging, college and high school


 * Anything goes**: it's my job as a judge to listen closely to what debaters have to say, not to dictate in advance what debaters should say. I do have my preconceptions, but I would rather be surprised by what debaters say than have my own biases confirmed.
 * Clash of civilizations good**: My favorite thing about debate is seeing disciplines that don't usually talk to one another getting in fights. I don't believe in a strong distinction between K and policy arguments. Teams that win clash of civs debates in front of me are usually the ones that do a better job applying their perspective to the other side's argument.
 * Framework**: Framework is not magic. It's usually pretty frustrating to evaluate because it seems to mean something different to everyone. In my mind, framework either means __impact priority arguments__ (structural violence outweighs war; util vs. deontology) OR __role of the ballot__ arguments (team that performs their advocacy best, knowledge production). Impact priority arguments don't require theory to answer: I'm unlikely to vote on "ethical arguments are unfair." Role of the ballot arguments might require theory. I am unlikely, however, to give much weight to self-serving role of the ballot arguments (vote for the team that best rejects capitalism; vote for the team that best criticizes imperialism). It goes without saying that fiat is illusory and that ballots are unlikely to cause social change. You might be better off arguing why your framework produces better, fairer, more educational debates.
 * Theory**: I love a good condo debate. Condo is always a reason to reject the team, not the argument. Self-serving condo counter-interpretations like "only 4 conditional worlds" are unpersuasive; "Dispo solves your offense" is similarly unpersuasive. I like theory arguments that respond to something in particular the neg did (2nc floating PIKs bad). Don't bother reading your severance/intrinsic perms bad block in front of me; I presume severance and intrinsic perms are bad, and am likely to not flow arguments to the contrary unless they're tied to a theoretical rejection of the counterplan/alternative. I can't remember ever having voted on PICs bad.
 * Evidence:** I usually only call for cards when I'm confused or the text of the evidence read is somehow in question. I dislike having to reconstruct the debate after the debate is over. If I see something in your evidence that wasn't clear to me during the debate, it won't influence my decision, but it will be something I mention in the post-round.
 * Be Nice**: The highest speaker points go to debaters who are courteous, friendly, and organized in addition to debating well. Act like the team that others want to win, not the team that thinks they should win.

Happy to clarify anything that's unclear. Good luck!