Roke,+Adam

Hey guys, I debated LD for four years for Torrey Pines HS, which is in SoCal, and graduated in 2013. I got 1 bid my senior year and didn't get the at-large for the TOC. My only conflict is Torrey Pines at the moment.
 * Background**

-I haven't judged since the end of 2013 so you really should go slower than your top speed; I haven't flowed a spread in a while now -I am very biased against disclosure theory; ask me before the round if you want me to better explain myself, but I am not very open to hearing the argument read -Do not assume I know what you are talking about--I don't know that much about the new topic so it's your burden to explain your arguments properly -I have no problem calling for evidence at the end of the round if I am unsure of something -You will have to try really hard to convince me to adopt a epistemically modest standard for evaluating impacts--I would describe my judging paradigm as epistemically confident.
 * UPDATE FOR LOYOLA 9/12**

-I'll resolve the framework, then evaluate who has more offense back to the standard -I'm fine with most frameworks, but don't go top speed for non-stock warrants -I'm fine with util, but debated it less than other positions in high school -Speed and presumption are fine -Theory is fine but I dislike bad theory A LOT -Not a good K judge -Speak average probably 28
 * TL;DR**

I will first try to resolve the framework debate and decide which ethic to evaluate and filter offense through. Then, I will evaluate the competing offense linking back to that standard to determine who the ballot goes to. This is not to say that it's some sort of quantity race, but rather that I will evaluate who has better/more/any offense under the standard; I think that the quality of the offense linking back to the framework is key and this is why weighing is particularly important for me. Let me emphasize this again: **please weigh**. If you don't weigh offense, then you force me to do it for you, and I guarantee that you won't always be happy with that outcome.
 * Paradigm**

Easiest way to get my ballot is to recognize the framework debate and make arguments accordingly. You need to realize when to cut your losses and go for turns and new offense that links into a framework that is obviously winning. This means framework first, then contention-level offense. If you can do that, you will make my job a lot easier and will benefit from higher speaks.

__ 2 things about framework to consider: __ 1. I ran most (if not all) normative frameworks and quite a few descriptive ones during my debate career. I am comfortable with most normative frameworks, but for dense warrants and cards, please slow down. For the most part, if the framework has been run in LD before, you should be fine, but generally it's a good idea to not go top speed for these arguments. 2. I rarely debated util./LARPed in high school. This doesn't mean I won't evaluate util--in fact I really enjoy good util debates with weighing and good evidence--but rather that I am more familiar with like Kantian-style arguments. I simply have not seen many good util rounds, so if you plan to run it, also plan on giving some kick-ass rebuttals.

I'm totally fine with speed--clarity is what I'm concerned about. I was decent at flowing arguments, but not the best. Keep in mind that as the judge I can't walk over to your laptop and flow over your shoulder. I really need to be able to flow if you want me to evaluate the round properly. I will yell "clear" twice, and after that will start deducting speaker points and stop attempting to flow. I had to learn this the hard way when I debated; please react and change something about your spread/pitch/whatever when I yell clear.
 * Speed**

Yeah, presumption is fine. I default to presuming aff but will totally listen to any presume neg arguments.
 * Presumption**

I was really into theory my junior year, but rarely ran it senior year due to many factors. I prefer to evaluate it in shell form, though I will buy paragraph theory in AC's as long as they are labeled as theory arguments AND are warranted. One sentence theory spikes are alright as long as they are warranted and have clear links to a voter/voters. However, there's a caveat to this: I view voters as particularly important for spikes. This means that if a voter (i.e. fairness) is not read in the speech that the spike / embedded theory arg is read in, then I will not treat the theory argument / interp / spike as dropped by the NC if the voter isn't read until the 1AR.
 * Theory and Topicality**

In all honesty, I don't enjoy most theory debates, though I definitely understand the need for theory. I will vote the way you tell me to on theory. For example, you can tell me to vote via competing interpretations and potential abuse if you want. Below is a list of anything out of the ordinary: -I default reasonability -RVIs are fine -I dislike standards weighing in a vaccuum -Please read the implication of your shell. Drop the argument, drop the debater, drop their speaks, something. This might surprise you, but I've watched two rounds where this implication was not read. //I probably default theory is drop the debater but ask me before the round// as this can change based off of theory debates I see.
 * However, this means something different than what you might think. I believe if reasonability is not contested, then I evaluate the debate in this way: a) some amount of defense and/or terminal defense on the standards debate shows you are reasonable, or b) turns on a theory shell are sufficient for me to resolve the debate on another layer. This is because the turns at least show how an initial interpretation is //unreasonable// in terms of fairness/education. Some say that this is bad because turns can be really shitty but still technically turns. This is what I have to say to that: a) if they are shitty turns then beat them, and b) WEIGH (i.e. potential abuse vs. actual abuse, standards weighing, etc.)
 * I am open to you specifying a different conception for what reasonability is. Just to be clear, the above is simply what I consider reasonability. You can tell me to vote a different way on reasonability or simply vote via competing interps/whatever.
 * I will also listen to reasons why RVIs are bad, but please do not make the argument "RVIs are bad because they vote up people just because they are being fair." This argument is just not true, and it will make me want to give you less speaks
 * I'm not especially receptive to arguments like, "textuality outweighs because it controls the internal link to all other standards"
 * Like, sure, ground on balance seems to be more important than, say, research breadth, but I think theory arguments are round specific, and so should standards weighing.

I never read these arguments in my debate career, and am not familiar with any of the lit. In all honesty, I am not the judge you want to have if you plan on running these types of arguments. However, I always liked the idea of a 1AR K. I had a couple for the Jan/Feb topic in 2013, but never read any of them. I do think they can be very strategic though. Rhetoric K's and pre-fiat PICs are alright, //as long as they are prompted by something the opponent does// [hint: link of omission is dumb].
 * Ks and critical arguments**

I don't believe I should shut down someone's debate career, record, seed, etc. because they were unlucky enough to have to negate the resolution. To that end, I will not vote on AC K's, micropolitical args, or these activist narrative arguments (like Avi Arfin's or Jessica Xu's) that tell me to vote up something so that it can get to a final round or "unite the crown." This is not to say that they don't have a place in debate, but rather that I am not comfortable with the implication of these types of arguments, which is to vote down the other person. This implication makes me doubt the sincerity of the kritik, just like I doubt the sincerity of people doing community service in high school--it's really for their resumes, not their community. I am much more comfortable giving you a loss and low speaks, since that will put you in the bottom of the bracket for breaks--> this helps spread the word better because you have to hit high seeds, which means more spectators.

If I think you should break, I'll give you above a 28.5. If I think you are close to breaking but need to get a little better, I'll give you above a 28. Mostly I will give speaks based off of your in-round strategy (pro-tip: sit down early in a speech if you are winning on the layer that matters, you'll get better speaks). My realistic range is probably be between a 27 and a 29.5. Here are the things that will negatively influence speaks: -Reading prepouts for entire speeches -Stealing cards from the circuitdebater wiki -Acting stuck-up/like a dick --> save that for outrounds -Reading frivolous theory (i.e. spelling errors bad) -Lying in CX -Definitional "I meets" --> I meet: A priori is defined as "from a general law to a particular instance" and I didn't run any of those.
 * Speaks**