Caldera,+Sophia

Updated Feb 2018 Conflicts: Walt Whitman

Three notes for Harvard 2018: 1. I will be running LD tab for most of the tournament. 2. If I judge in-rounds, I will give out speaks more polarized than usual to account for the size of the 4-2 break (particularly, being generous if I think you should clear). I will be much more inclined to speak you favorably if you make interesting use of CX. 3. I last judged at Lex 2018 and most commonly asked people to be louder.

I debated LD for Walt Whitman High School for four years on the local and national circuits and qualified to TOC my junior and senior years. I taught at TDC and NSD in the summers of 2015 and 2016.

Long story short: I'll vote on anything that you win on the flow. My goal is to construct an RFD composed as much as possible of arguments made explicitly in round, so the easiest way to get my ballot is to make direct comparisons. Rather than defaulting to particular paradigmatic views, I will do my best to elucidate the assumptions shared by both debaters on issues to which neither speaks explicitly. I would much prefer that you save me the trouble and uncertainty of this by making your choices clearly.

I'll say clear/slow as many times as necessary if I'm having trouble flowing you. Consider repeating what you just said if it's potentially vital and I just said clear. Slow down substantially for any interpretations/short analytics/arguments that must be flowed verbatim so they're clear to everyone the first time -- if you look at me, you should be able to tell whether I'm with you.

I've tried to cover the bases of other things you might want to know below. They're intended to give you more information about how I think about debate, but not to dictate the way you do. The amount I like or believe in an argument should be irrelevant to your ability to win it. Please ask if you have any specific questions!

More details: - Extensions - Framework and Ks - Theory - Misc.
 * I have a very low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments. For instance, if substance is conceded, pointing that out is sufficient for me to grant you that layer.
 * However, don't be careless -- you do need to explicitly extend any offense you want me to vote on at some point.
 * If you read a shell in a four-part format, I'd appreciate at least lip-service extensions of all four parts -- assuming that the violation isn't contested, saying "Extend x interp and the violation" is fine.
 * Paragraph theory: your extension doesn't need to go beyond the original format/warrants plus violation and voter, though I will treat anything I only understand the second time around as new in that speech.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I love framework debate. LD is valuable because it teaches us to fully and rigorously justify things -- the contention level debate is only possible with normative arguments to frame what we should care about. That means I'm up for arguments that you skip some step of justification no matter what the form of the position is.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">K frameworks take philosophical stances, and make claims on us at the same level as more traditional philosophical frameworks. You can and should be doing this type of comparison between them.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The round runs into an obvious problem when both debaters tell me some framework warrant "precludes everything." Please give me specific comparison or weighing between framework arguments instead of relying on concessions of overhyped analytics.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The frivolous variety: go for it if you want -- an abuse story is an abuse story.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I am very receptive to the argument that I shouldn't vote on unverifiable violations.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I'm probably best at evaluating theory under competing interps. I'm happy to use anything else you justify, but be clear about what you want me to do with it. (This applies to specific flavors of competing interps too -- if you want access to various implications, you should outline/warrant them from the start of the theory debate.)
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I'm interested in thoughtful remedies other than drop the debater/drop the arg and intelligent contestation of voters.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">High speaks for doing what you do well. In particular, I appreciate clear overviews, good strategy, and lots of comparison.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Be polite to people with different debate backgrounds than your own. Respecting your opponent is a precondition for debate.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">If the content of your position is something graphic or reasonably foreseeable as potentially distressing, please be a good person and check whether all the other people in the room are okay hearing it. Your speaks will likely suffer if this doesn't happen.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">CX is awesome! Dominance and snark are great; you should be able to tell the difference between these and bullying. If you're uncomfortable with how your opponent is treating you, please say something about it. If you're asked by an opponent to be more respectful and don't make an effort to comply, I'll be very unhappy.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Presumption is a legitimate strategic move.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I'm entertained by clever tricks I haven't seen before.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Debate is a game -- have fun! If that's not working out, try talking to someone. It's the reason people stick around.