Martin,+Adam

St. Vincent de Paul ‘16 UC Berkeley '20 I have qualified to the TOC my sophomore, junior, and senior years, and broken/gotten speaker awards at most national tournaments I go to. Put me on the email chain - adam.martin707@gmail.com

__Update for 2017 Tournaments:__
Aside from tinkering with some things that I had written in my philosophy prior, there are some words for each 'type' of team that (following Nate's majestic lead) I think would be good to start with.

__'Policy' Teams Read This:__
My academic interests and preferred positions to read in high school and college are very misleading when it comes to both how you should debate if you have me in the back of the room and how you should pref me.

I am not looking for you to engage in academic circle-jerks just because I like to. I am a cynical millennial who hates when people have opinions and tries too hard to not have emotional investment in arguments that I read or judge. I am probably way better for you when you are going for framework than you would think. I adore exclusion. I will vote neg on presumption due to the aff dropping subpoint E of your predictability block faster than Trump castrated the EPA. If you are aff against the K, I am sitting and waiting for that 2ar on 'Ks are unfair vote aff'.

For reference, my judging record contains more votes for the heg good K against an identity aff than it does on the death K. I would way rather you read a one advantage heg aff and impact turn interventions bad than have to sit through your pathetic "global warming hurts my pansexual grandma" policy aff that you think gives you an 'edge' against queer nihilism. It doesn't. If your coaches say it does, they are wrong and get a better coach.

Finally, surprise surprise, we postmodern goo-drips like judging policy v policy rounds too. Turns out that a fresh-out-the-oven cp that defaces the absurd cherry-picking that is the aff's solvency mechanism gets me just as hard as it would get anyone else. Just debate well please.

__Kritikal Slime Read This:__
Now's your chance. I try too hard to avoid being biased in round, so I do not give half of one of Ivanka Trump's golden shits about how utterly batshit the claims you make are. As far as I am concerned, the risk that death is a biological incident and the risk that it is Sean Spicer's cosmic cinnamon Orbital gum cum are pretty much equal.

My previous statements about loving when policy teams win on 'Ks are unfair' or on 'heg is more important than your feelings' should only worry you if you are bad at debate. Its not as if I give these spinal fecal-spawn of real arguments a lot of credence, I just am like every other judge on the planet and don't like when scholarship I spend my life acting like I know better than other people is read poorly. I won't whine and drop you if I think you interpreted Baudrillard incorrectly - I clearly have no jurisdiction as to what the hell that cigarette canister was trying to say - but I also will not make up arguments for you just because you scream about the Matrix until you pee yourself.

=__**ok now here's the judge philosophy that is actually a judge philosophy:**__=

__**How I Evaluate Rounds**__
I try to stick to a pseudo-objective rubric for evaluating rounds in order to exclude intuition and individual preference. I will try to lay that out for you now because it is something I always wish I knew about whoever is judging me. If you don't agree with some of these presuppositions, give a reason why I should disavow them in round. This is also a running list so it may change throughout the year. (admittedly, much of this will sound obvious, but it is nice to have a set of rules and a rubric so that we are all on the same page) - I will begin with framework. If it is a policy vs policy round, I will skip this step. Otherwise, I will determine which styles of advocacy I get to evaluate. Usually this will merely be me determining if the aff gets to weigh the plan and if the neg gets a non-fiated advocacy, but it could also extend to questions such as; are floating piks legitimate? - I then calcify what I think voting aff and voting neg signifies. Most of the time, voting aff means me determining that the plan/advocacy is a good idea, but this could change with more complicated/kritikal rounds. - I will then make a list of every impact in the round. - Next, I will attempt to figure out which impacts each team solves/causes. This is constituted by advantages the aff solves, case turns, internal link turns, straight turns, and all of that good stuff. - Naturally, I will then weigh the impacts. This will be done by first determining what I am trying to maximize (usually it is subjective pleasure through body count). I will then look at other impact framing arguments such as Bostrom, Scheper-Hughes, and a v2l claim. - This usually produces a winning team. After I have a preliminary vote, I will go through all of the arguments made by the 'losing' team to see if any of them complicate the initial decision that I have written down. - I then submit the ballot and give the decision.

__Here are a few more notes about how I view arguments__: - If I don't have it flowed, it is not an argument. I type very quickly and get down most every word you say so if I don't have it written down, I will not feel comfortable voting on it. - I will usually weigh theoretical impacts before substantive ones. They tend to predetermine substance. - If the affirmative reads a few advantages, and the neg never contests them (possibly because it is a K that attempts to exclude fiat), I will extend the aff for the affirmative even if the internal link scenario is not explained **up through the 1ar**. This means the 2ar must at least reference the fact that they have an extinction impact in the 2ar with some semblance of how they get there or I will consider the aff not going for their advantages. - The above statement is true about the core advantages of the aff, not random cards the 1ac reads. If you read Zanotti in your framing contention, you do not get to wait until the 2ar to explain why it matters. - Until an argument is made to the contrary, I think of voting for an advocacy as me signifying that that thing would be a good thing if done, not that the negative or affirmative has actually performed said advocacy. - I will kick the CP for you if condo is never mentioned or won by the neg and I decide that the aff is a bad idea. This is something I am going to think about a lot but as of now, I will presume judge kick. - Cross-applications are not new arguments. If the 1ar says reasonability on one T violation, and the 2nr goes for a different one, the 2ar can cross-apply it legitimately. However, this does assume that there was a reason why their c/i is reasonable in the 1ar.

__**You can have my flow**__ I always wished that it wasn't awkward to ask the judge for their flow, so this is me telling you that it is not awkward for you to ask me for mine. I think that reading someone's flow of your speech is incredibly educational and so I will happily send you a copy of my flow.
 * DISCLAIMER*** by requesting my flow, you agree to release me of all liability regarding what is written on it. you're reading the train of thought of an exhausted college student who is undoubtedly thinking more about where he can find an energy drink than how to phrase his transcription of your speech - that can be a spooky thing to read

- I like K’s. I read the most untopical aff you could think of. I literally advocate doing nothing. I go for wipeout in front of parent judges and Schopenhauer with real judges. Baudrillard is my best friend. In summary, if you read a K aff or a K on the neg, I will be happy, as long as you don’t majorly suck at it. - However, this does not mean that I hate policy style arguments. I go for framework religiously, I love a good politics/case debate and I will totally vote for heg is good and the most ethical system. Don’t read a K you do not know in front of me if you want to win the round. I will enjoy it, but I will give you shit speaks and drop you. - I will vote for anything. To quote Calum Matheson “If you can’t beat the argument that genocide is good or that rocks are people, or that rock genocide is good even though they’re people, then you are a bad advocate of your cause and you should lose.”
 * __ Short Version __**

=**__ Long Version with all the Juicy Details __**=
 * Kritiks** – I go for them in every 2nr. It is my favorite thing and I like when people read them. I am well versed in the majority of kritikal literature. I am most comfortable with Bifo, Bifo, Bifo, Bifo, Baudrillard, Baudrillard, Baudrillard, Marxism, Deleuze, Queerness, Bataille, Nietzsche, Security, Ableism, Fem, and probably other ones I can’t remember right now. You can read any kritik in front of me. For the aff in this case, pull them into your playing field. You have an affirmative, try not to forget that. While they are spewing out scraps of whatever shit Baudrillard took after May 1968, it turns out that they often forget to say why your aff is a bad idea. I am very convinced by aff contextualizing themselves out of the generic K goo the neg read. Also, and this is true for both sides, do not underestimate the framework debate. If you are on the neg and reading some K and the aff doesn't read strong evidence for why fiat is good, I expect you to go for they do not get to weigh their advantages. If you are on the aff and the neg skimpily answers your bomb-ass Mitchell card from "after Mitchell changed his mind", capitalize that and go for they don't get their alt. I will easily vote for either of these claims.


 * Framework** – It’s an argument (probably my favorite argument). It wins some rounds (it should win more). I answer it every aff round and go for it against pretty much every K aff on the neg. Even though I have spent all of my years in high school learning why framework is wrong, I truly believe that the answers teams read to framework are utterly horrible, not to mention I spent a while over summer learning framework from Wimsatt, so I am in love with fascism now. I will easily vote neg on framework; I know what it means to lose a framework debate. However, I do not think that anything is a jurisdictional voting issue and if you say that I may determine that it is out of my jurisdiction as a judge to vote for you. Also, fairness is not an inherent good. Impact it out or you will lose rounds.


 * Kritikal Affs** – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dnTLx4XQDI


 * Topicality** (Not Framework) – Sure, I don’t have any weird pet peeves here.


 * Disads** – Read them, win on them. I am very pleased with case specific disads that turn the aff on a deeper level than "econ collapse turns warming".


 * Counterplans** – I have no predispositions against any of them. I will vote for the shiftiest illegit counterplan you can think of or a very legit advantage CP. Delay CPs and “The president should sign the bill with a blue pen instead of black pen” CPs are probably abusive but I will vote for it if you win it. There is such a thing as zero percent risk of a net benefit, but only if that claim is supplemented with a reason why that is a bad value calculus


 * Theory** – I LOVE THEORY. I don't think I have any relevant opinions when it comes to theory debates. I try to stay un-opinionated, so I will evaluate ASPEC just as objectively as I would condo. If you are reading a K aff, you should make sure that your theory arguments are consistent with the thesis of your aff. I say clash is bad on the aff, so I do not read condo; you should do the same thing. If you are neg and the aff does that, utilize it to your advantage.


 * Evidence vs Arguments** – I believe that evidence exists for the sole purpose of making an argument. Very often, I could care less about whether or not you read a card on an argument. Now, to be fair, this is likely true because I spend the most of my time in kritikal debates in which statistics, uniqueness and quals and such are not an issue. So yes, if it is a study, or a statistical claim about the squo, or something you need an expert to say, then read evidence. However, what I will not do is call for your evidence (especially in a K round), then read it to see if the author was smart enough to make the argument you didn’t make in round. Debate should not be about how good your coaches are at cutting cards, but how good you are at arguing. Due to this, I may not call for many cards after the round. If I do, I might just be curious or stealing your cites.


 * Conceded Arguments** – I will vote for any cheap shot you want to go for if you can make it impacted out. Severance bad probably isn't a voter if they don't extend the perm, but if they don't say that and you gave a reason it'd be a voter in the block, go for it. However, this does not mean I am an easy sell on conceded claims. I will not feel bad voting against you if your entire 2ar strat was based on a claim that they conceded. If you do not have a warrant for it, I will ignore it, even if the other team fails to answer it. This is especially true with kritikal arguments. If you go for "state engagement is impossible because people are socially dead" but fail to tell me why they are socially dead, you will lose.


 * Case** – Any good neg strategy includes a good amount of time spent on case. This is true no matter what style of round it is. I will be very pleased if you do not let the aff get away with the shifty and illogical claims that they are making at the top of every case overview. It turns out that much of what aff teams say they can solve (especially with K debates), they cannot actually solve. I always love seeing a strong 2nc on a K then a 1nr that rips through case. This will heavily boost your speaker points and help you out of the aff pulling a fast one on you.

__**Stuff I Have Been Told I am Weird About**__
I have compiled a list of thoughts I have about debate that seem to be in the minority (this will grow as I start actually judging) -


 * 1.** __Performative Contradictions__ are only abusive if the negative asserts two opposing truth claims neither of which did the affirmative explicitly defend. This standard usually means it is more strategic to just cross-apply one of their claims to take out the other then spend your time no-linking the first position. To give an example, I do not think that it is abusive for a team to read a death reps K and then read a disad that has death impacts if your affirmative also had death impacts. I just can't conceive of how that could be abusive. There is no functional distinction between '1nc - Death K, DA, Case' and '1nc - Disease Reps K, DA, Case' in terms of abusing the affirmative. However, reading the cap K and then a DA that says the aff hurts cap and cap is good against an aff that is about emission reduction and doesn't mention capitalism is obviously abusive. The negative has made two competing truth claims, neither of which did the affirmative defend. HOWEVER, this rant is just my thoughts, and can be used by either team in the round but it does not mean that I won't vote for perf con if the neg reads a Death K and an extinction-level DA, I'll still evaluate it like any other round.


 * 2.** __Framework Doesn't Need an External Impact__. If the negative wins that framework solves the aff better than the aff (either by winning a spill-up claim the aff didn't claim or by winning case defense), then I vote neg. Framework is a counterplan, if there is no perm and it solves the aff better, vote neg. HOWEVER, this can only work in very particular situations when the neg is definitively winning strong case defense and there is no push against 'fw solves the aff' and no offense vs framework. Hopefully the aff doesn't let this situation happen.


 * 3.** __I will vote for a nihilism (K?)__. I think the logic of 1% risk doesn't make sense if the neg properly deploys the thesis of nihilism. I know no one will go for it and if they do its because they have nothing else to say so the round will be a shit-show, I just really wanna vote on that. The K was in parenthesis because I'm not sure it counts as a K, more a procedural.


 * 4.** __No Precedent Setting__ is a good argument against framework. The claim that voting neg doesn't stop people from reading K affs is probs true and I think can be coupled with some in-round offense to make a pretty clean aff ballot. I used to go for this arg but judges seemed to hate it so I stopped, but if you have me in the back, plez go for it.

- Above 29.5: I will spend tonight crying about how beautifully you debated - 29.5: I will tell my friends about you - 29 – 29.5: You should get a top 5 speaker award - 28.7 – 29: You should probably break - 28.5 – 28.7: You gave solid speeches - 28 – 28.5: You are a good debater, some strategic errors - 27.5 – 28: You are decent, but made many errors - 27 – 27.5: You made many mistakes, and probably lost the debate for your team - 26.5 – 27: You made many errors and should end 1-5 or 0-6 - 26 – 26.5: You shouldn’t be in whatever level of debate you are - Under 26: You were literally incomprehensible or offensive
 * Speaker Points** – (I inflate/curve points depending upon the difficulty of the tournament)

Final Note: - Death is probably good