Scopa,+Stephen

I debated at Pines Charter on both the national and local circuit and went to TOC my senior year.


 * General: ** I am very much a tech > truth person who will vote for any argument you make no matter how seemingly ridiculous or bizarre, all I need is a warrant. I also have a low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments but they need to be extended in each speech.

- I default to truth testing if no other RoB is read in the round.

- I am not exactly the best at flowing, so when you are making analytic arguments you should label them and sign post as clear as possible. Also maybe take half a second after author names.

- I don’t evaluate embedded clash unless there is an argument as to why I should or the round is irresolvable without it.

- I do not believe you get new 2n responses to AC arguments unless an argument is made for why you get those arguments in the NC- making an argument in the 2n that says something like “this was just a dumb blippy argument” is not sufficient. This goes for 2ar responses to NC arguments as well.

- Believe it or not, I will vote on disclosure theory. I would however, //strongly// advise against this strategy because I have an extremely low threshold for responses because I absolutely hate the argument. Honestly if you’re reading disclosure in front of me you should reevaluate your life because I can guarantee there’s a more strategic option.

- Drop the arg on theory, drop the debater on T - Competing interps - Norms creation model - No RVI - Fairness is a voter
 * Theory: ** Go for it- this is probably one of the easier things for me to judge. Slow down on the interpretation a bit if it’s something more nuanced. I don’t “gut check” frivolous shells but obviously if you are winning reasonability then I will evaluate through whatever your brightline is. If neither debater makes arguments I default to the following:
 * Also, for counter inteprs “converse of the interp” is not sufficient, if your opponent says “idk what the converse is so I can’t be held to the norm” I will buy that argument, just actually come up with a counter interp. **

<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;,serif;">**MAJOR UPDATE POST SUNVITE:** If your “trick” does not have a warrant I will not vote on it. Yes I like weird/silly/unique arguments but throwing a bunch of shit at the wall to see what sticks won’t work and even if it does your speaks will suffer heavily- I hate seeing people butcher tricks debate! L
 * <span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;,serif;">Tricks: **<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;,serif;"> This is my favorite style of debate and I love a clever trick or a priori but that doesn’t mean I will instantly vote for you if you read them without winning why they are relevant (aka you are winning truth testing). The more clever your arguments are, the higher your speaks will be. Despite my love for them, I usually have a low threshold for responses since the arguments are usually fairly weak. If you obviously just included an a priori because I am judging you and don’t extend a conceded one, your speaks will probably suffer. I also prefer you be more up front with them in CX if your opponent catches them, I have a lot more respect for people who are straight up about their sketchiness. If you are not the best at answering these arguments I wouldn’t worry too much, I will be more than happy to disregard them if you are winning a role of the ballot that excludes them or a shell that indicts them. Also, calling something a trick doesn’t mean anything to me- tell me what the implication of the argument is.


 * <span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;,serif;">Ks: **<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;,serif;"> I really enjoy a good K debate. Despite my reputation, I read Ks quite often because not all judges were good for my preferred style, so I know quite a bit of K literature and how interactions work. The one caveat is that I won’t vote for arguments I just cannot understand at all (Shout out to Grant Brown<3). Otherwise I am totally down to judge a K debate. I have read Deleuze, Butler, Wilderson, Heidegger, Baudrillard, and Edelman in rounds before so I definitely think Ks like these are interesting and strategic. I occasionally enjoy judging these debates the most because of how interesting and unique the arguments are. Ultimately if this is your favorite/ best style, you should go for it.


 * <span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;,serif;">Larp: **<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;,serif;"> I was never a larper, never judged a high level larp round, and am probably not qualified to judge a really good DA v Util AC debate. I don’t particularly enjoy these debates, and you most likely will not enjoy me judging you but I will do my best to evaluate the round.


 * <span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;,serif;">Fwk: **<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;,serif;">I enjoy a good framework debate, it can just become fairly difficult to follow at times. As long as you clearly label arguments and make sure to weigh I feel pretty comfortable evaluating these rounds. However, these debates can often become muddled and devolve into a chicken and egg debate, which makes it near impossible to resolve so be careful of that.


 * <span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;,serif;">Speaks: **<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;,serif;"> I am generally high in my speaker point assignments for some reason, apparently I am pretty easy to impress. I average probably a 28.8. I like unique and clever arguments and well executed strategy- I would not advise you to go for a tricks aff if you are a larp debater just because I am judging you, do what you do well to get good speaks. I am also somewhat expressive when I think about how arguments interact so don’t mind my face.