Pacheco,+Tom

So I thought about my previous philosophy, and I didn’t think I would like it if I were a debater and read it. So I will try to provide (hopefully) more useful insight into what I think about debate. I have no idea what situations will occur and what defaults I may have given my limited amount of judging, but I think explaining what I thought about debate as a debater will help.

I just graduated from college, having debated for 4 years in high school at Loyola Blakefield and 4 years in college at the University of Mary Washington.

The way to get me to vote for you is to tell me what to vote on and how to evaluate it. Force my hand, think about the debate from a holistic perspective. Compare arguments. Make even if statements.

What did I really value that I got out of debate? Fun- I thought debate was a ton of fun. Thinking quickly on my feet, trying to predict what people would say, cutting a ton of cards. I loved debate.

Critical thinking- I do not think anything ever made me think as hard and as complexly as debate. Limited prep time, strategic decisions needing to be made. Thinking about the best arguments to be made against a certain team or with a certain judge. Thinking the way debate teaches has helped me in undergrad, law school, and in life. It teaches a certain way of thinking that is invaluable.

Advocacy- debate taught me how to make an argument, and how to win it in front of anyone. Strip debate of the jargon, and you know how to make an argument in any context. It enhanced my paper writing and has helped me in a lot of situations I think.

How did I get this out of debate? Rigorous testing. Equitably difficult debate where both teams rigorously test each other’s arguments produces an activity that I found fun, helped me to think critically in quick and strategic ways, and taught me how to make arguments efficiently. I fundamentally think that debate is about rigorously testing positions. You can have debates about anything, but I think this is how I would describe it to people outside of debate and is what debate should be in my normative world.

Why does this matter? It shapes what I think about debate positions, or is my default for evaluation. This is one of many possible frames I could use. But this is where I start, and it shapes my perception of topicality, to CP competition, to Ks, to theory, to speaker points.

FW I do think I am open to listening to alternative constructions of debate, but what that is and looks like needs to be tangible to me for me. The team that answers the question- what world of debate is most equitably rigorous wins. My presumption about rigorous testing can be challenged, and I do not know what I will think once I start judging. It is my default though. I think the topic has value insofar as it sets a stasis for argumentation from which rigorous testing commences. Topical version of the aff arguments are good, but not necessary for the neg. For the aff (saying debate bad), I think uniqueness arguments about exclusion are persuasive. I think the closer the aff is to the topic, the more persuasive reasonability becomes.

Topicality Topicality debates should be grounded in the literature. I tend to think limits are a controlling issue in T debates because they determine whether the neg has the opportunity to rigorously test the aff. Caselists are useful for either side.

I think arguments contextual to the topic are useful. I think T is important on the oceans topic given its enormity and the lack of unified negative ground. For the aff, I am compelled by aff flex arguments like its and generic CPs make the topic awful.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">CPs <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">For most CPs, I probably default to reject the argument not the team. I do think there are arguments that can be made that bad CPs are a reason to reject the team, but it is not my default presumption. There are two questions that I think are important to answer- does the CP rigorously test the aff AND how critical is the CP in the literature? I do think that most CP theory debates are invariably shallow which makes evaluating them difficult.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">Conditionality does not differ for me from other CP theory in that the question is about rigorous testing. I do think conditionality is rampant. I think contradicting positions are bad, but can also have different implications in debates- does using the same reps you k’ed mean that perm- do the alt is legit, or that the alt fails? Probably. Contextualizing conditionality to the specific practices done in the debate makes the argument very persuasive.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">My presumption is against intervening to kick the CP for the 2nr. If I am told to do it, I might if the aff drops the argument. If they don’t, I probably won’t.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">College teams – Pics- I am not completely sold that all/nearly all is the death knell for pics on the college topic. My presumption for pics being good makes me think this is a debatable question, even if the resolution tries to write this out of debates.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">Ks <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">I think topic-specific critiques can be interesting because they rigorously test the aff. Whichever team controls the role of the ballot typically wins, and neg teams should invest more if the role of the ballot is distinct from my presumption of testing. I also do not think it is strategic for K teams to not answer the aff explicitly – dropping the 1ac usually means I vote aff – meaning my bar is higher on voting for “x comes first”/ “x means the whole aff is wrong” args. Generalizations do not test the aff. Dropping the 1ac does not test the aff.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">I think try or die is how I think about ks. Ks that are the strongest in persuading me control the impact uniqueness of the debate. I find aff arguments about trends in the status quo more important than other people because of that (for example, if the environment is sustainable, winning a consumption k becomes much harder). Affs should focus on alt solvency and how to evaluate impacts.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">Disads <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">I tend to think the link controls the direction of the DA, but can be persuaded that uniqueness does. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">I think zero risk is possible. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">I think turns case arguments really help the neg. I think unanswered turns case arguments by the block in the 1ar are difficult for the aff to come back from.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">General <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">You will receive a bump in speaker points if you read quals. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">I flow cross-x. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">Demonstrate topic knowledge. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">I like specific arguments better than general ones. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">I think long overviews are overrated and are a way to avoid clash. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">Start impact calculus early. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">Indict specific evidence- the quals and the warrants. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">Explain to me why I should prefer your evidence over your opponents. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">Tell me when an argument is new or dropped. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">Be comprehensible. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">2as should not blow off arguments on the case. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">Smart arguments matter, as long as they are complete. An argument is a claim and warrant. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">Clipping is a problem in the activity. Don’t do it. Don’t allege that someone else has done it without evidence via recording – you will not win otherwise. The debate community relies on shared trust. Breaking that trust or accusing someone of doing this is of the utmost seriousness. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">Be organized- with yourself in the debate as well as your arguments. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">Do not steal prep. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">Minimize the amount of time paperless debate causes.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">***Previous philosophy***

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">Short version <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">I just graduated from college, having debated for 4 years in high school at Loyola Blakefield and 4 years in college at the University of Mary Washington. I have not judged so much that there is a predisposition that is so strong not to be able to be overcome. You do you, most things are up for debate. I prefer specific strategies over general strategies regardless of what those strategies deploy. I prefer CP/Politics or Politics/Case debates. I think the real way to being happy with a decision from me is to tell me what to do and how to assess arguments in the debate. The team that tells me what to do at the end of the debate and has the best reasoning for it will win. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">I like hard work. Debaters that work will hard will be rewarded for doing so. I will also work my hardest to give every debater the credit they deserve while I am making a decision. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">Coaches who have had a formative impact on me – Adrienne Brovero, Daryl Burch, Tom Durkin. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">Judges I liked that I would like to be like – Lawrence Granpre, Scott Harris, Fernando Kirkman, Sarah Sanchez, Patrick Waldinger. I promise I will not be as good as these people, but I use them as a model for how I want to judge. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">Background <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">I was a 2a and a politics debater in college, and a 2n that relied on the cap k and topicality in high school. I have done significant research on the oceans topic, and a little on the college topic. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">FW <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">I default policymaker. I think the topic is set up to be instrumentally affirmed. Again, not so much so that I will not listen to other arguments or perspectives. For the neg, I am strong believer in fairness as well as the skills that debate teaches. I think predictability is necessary for debates to happen. Topical version of the aff arguments are good, but not necessary for the neg. For the aff (saying debate bad), I think uniqueness arguments about exclusion are persuasive. I think the closer the aff is to the topic, the more persuasive reasonability becomes. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">Topicality <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">Topicality debates should be grounded in the literature. I tend to think limits are a controlling issue in T debates. Caselists are useful for either side. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">I think arguments contextual to the topic are useful. I think T is important on the oceans topic given its enormity and the lack of unified negative ground. For the aff, I am compelled by aff flex arguments like its and generic CPs make the topic awful. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">CPs <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">For most CPs, I probably default to reject the argument not the team. That does not mean that I think that all CPs are good OR that I would be unwilling to vote on a cheating CP. I do think that most CP theory debates are invariably shallow which makes voting on them difficult. Most teams get away with bad/illegitimate CPs because the aff is terrible at executing, or the neg has some trick. I also think the more contextual a CP is within a set of literature, the harder it is to beat on theory questions. I have no predispositions on CP theory – I am willing to listen to it. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">Conditionality is different than other CP theory args for me. It is certainly excessive most of the time. It gets egregious when positions contradict. Contextualizing conditionality to the specific practices done in the debate makes the argument very persuasive. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">College teams – Pics- I am not completely sold that all/nearly all is the death knell for pics on the college topic. My presumption for pics being good makes me think this is a debatable question, even the resolution tries to write this out of debates. I think what is “nearly all” is what the literature says it is. I am also compelled that maybe the topic is so bad that these pics are important for the neg. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">Ks <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">I think topic-specific critiques can be interesting. The more specific to the topic, and the more specific to the aff, the better. Whichever team controls the role of the ballot typically wins. I also do not think it is strategic for K teams to not answer the aff explicitly – dropping the 1ac usually means I vote aff – meaning my bar is higher on voting for “x comes first”/ “x means the whole aff is wrong” args. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">Disads <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">I tend to think the link controls the direction of the DA, but can be persuaded that uniqueness does. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">I think zero risk is possible. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">I think turns case arguments really help the neg. I think unanswered turns case arguments by the block in the 1ar are difficult for the aff to come back from. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">General <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">I think long overviews are overrated. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">Start impact calculus early. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">Be comprehensible. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">Smart arguments matter, as long as they are complete. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">Clipping is a problem in the activity. Don’t do it. Don’t allege that someone else has done it without evidence via recording – you will not win otherwise. The debate community relies on shared trust. Breaking that trust or accusing someone of doing this is of the utmost seriousness. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">Be organized. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">Do not steal prep. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">Minimize the amount of time paperless debate causes. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">Have fun – that’s why I do this.