Switala,+Julian+Franciszek

SEE YOU  IN FINALS

School Affiliations [not all of these affiliations justify a conflict today]: University of Minnesota, Saint Louis Park HS, Edina HS, The Blake School, Saint Thomas Academy, Convent of the Visitation (THE BEST!) Experience: 5 years judging & coaching HS LD, 3 years judging & coaching HS policy, 1 year judging & coaching college policy

This page is broken down into the following sections:

I. Paradigm II. Arguments: Substantive & Theoretical III. Speaker Points IV. Things I Hate / Suggestions V. Seriously, why did you read this?!

=I. Paradigm=


 * Short version:** I am not especially ideologically committed to any school of thought regarding how a debate round should function or how I should evaluate a debate round. PLEASE do want you want to do. Hopefully what you want to do is what you do best... High speaker points are awarded for creativity and intelligence.


 * Long version:** I view debate as an almost infinitely open-ended game and I enjoy seeing new and interesting ways of winning that game. Do what you want and explain why it means you win. Usually this entails establishing a coherent decision-making structure and then linking/impacting your (hopefully) warranted argument(s) back to that structure. All that I will impose on you are the tournament's basic rules (speech/prep times, no double wins, etc.), but who knows! Maybe your debating will dictate that I do not impose such rules on the round. I impose no limitations on the argumentation and strategies that can be employed by you and your opponent; just make sure everyone leaves the room alive. I doubt that you will run arguments which I either will not be willing to vote on or which I will not understand. Nevertheless you may very well speak above my level of understanding/knowledge and if you do you must remember that the onus is on you to coherently explain your argument(s) and not depend on ostentatiously exclusive and pretentious terminology/jargon. For instance, while I may know what "homo sacer" means in Agamben's writings, you should be able to explain your argument in concrete terms (non-terminological/non-jargon words). If you fail to make me understand your argument, then it is probably because you failed more as a debater than I failed as that stupid judge who you are (thankfully!) striking from now on. The more in-depth of an explanation you provide the better, but please do not go overboard (unless you are collapsing to one argument in the final speech and you are tying up all the loose ends, counter-arguments and pre-empts). I may nod my head to signal, "move on."


 * All of my personal beliefs about debate** are up for debate in the round. I try not to use my beliefs as a crutch for my RFD. There are warranted arguments to be made in favor of and against all propositions so just do the better debating. I immensely enjoy when my beliefs about debate are perspicaciously challenged by debaters in round so do not worry too much about my argument preferences.


 * Speed is** never a problem, but lack of clarity is always a problem. I usually flow on a computer so you do not have anything to worry about in regards to speed. Just make sure to signpost and enunciate tags, card names, numbers, anything you definitely want me to have on my flow, etc. Time limits exist for a reason; namely to ensure that judges and coaches remain sane at tournaments. I understand that you (hopefully) have lots of propositions to make and that you do not have a sufficient amount of time in which to make all of them. Regardless, quality > quantity. Always! Quality fast debate > quality slow debate > bad slow debate & bad fast debate. I would rather hear one really long, awesome argument than one hundred turds thrown all over the flow. One huge giant turd is alright, I guess.


 * Stylistically speaking**, do not do anything that you are not comfortable doing, especially if it is speaking quickly. Debate what you debate best and debate how you debate best. The debate tournament is not time for practice. But if I have the privilege of judging you when you are down and out, then please go for broke and do whatever you want.

Rule #1: Even though I understand a handful of languages, I demand that you make your arguments in English.
(1) For some reason people have confused my (very low) willingness to vote on blippy, underdeveloped, non-responsive, overly generic 'arguments' with a strong desire to hear such 'arguments' and a high propensity to vote on them in ridiculous circumstances. Such 'arguments' will get you nowhere --- you will get bad speaker points and you will lose rounds to any opponent who is not in a vegetative state. Unless you have reason to believe that your opponent will become a mute in round, I am not sure why this (my low willingness to vote on crap) means that you should strike me. But please, strike away!
 * (A) Substantive Arguments:**

(2) For some reason people think that I am 'trigger-happy' if a dropped argument is on the flow. LOLOL! I am only trigger happy in such circumstances when debaters fail to compare their arguments with their opponent's arguments in terms of (A) the merits of the argument itself (strength of link, empirical verification, quality of warrant, qualifications of author, offense/defense comparisons, other mitigations, etc.) and/or (B) the substantive content of the argument (magnitude, probability, scope, timeframe, etc.). I will do as little work as possible for debaters when rendering a decision and usually this means that a 'passable dropped argument' is valued above a 'passably answered decent argument.' Remember, even if you drop an argument you can overcome a drop in later rebuttals by outweighing it on an assortment of levels. [FYI, I rarely consider any sort of argument comparison/weighing to be new, even if there are comparison/weighing cards read in the 2AR. Though in that case you should just make the arguments in the cards without reading the cards themselves because I will not give you the benefit of having read those cards (author qualifications or whatever) because the negative cannot respond.] Also, there is something called framing (what impacts are [most] (ir)relevant), of which you should take advantage. If you did not explicitly make a particular argument during your speech, then you should not expect me to make that argument for you in my RFD. I am not like the other judges you pref. Sorry.

LDers: If it is a preliminary round and you want good speaker points, then you better not go for theory. I have rarely been happy with theory debates and I highly doubt that you are going to be the exception. Do I like theory? Yes. Do I like it when you run theory in round? NO! (1) The 'abuse' is rarely bad enough to warrant a ballot. (2) "Reject the argument, not the debater" is almost always devastating. (3) Potential abuse probably is not a voter (especially if I am not given a compelling reason why it is a voter), and most theory arguments are about potential abuse: "OMG there is a sentence in the AFF case of which I am afraid! Even though it has not been used abusively because the 1AR has not happened yet you should still drop the AFF debater..." (4) THEORY IN LD HAS BECOME A CRUTCH FOR SUBSTANTIVELY RESPONDING TO ACTUAL ARGUMENTS. IF THE ARGUMENT IS TRULY AS DUMB AS YOUR THEORY ARGUMENT MAKES IT OUT TO BE, THEN YOU SHOULD JUST RESPOND TO IT........ (5) The 'argument' that some debaters read in LD at the end of theory violations that says, "Me reading this theory violation and spending time on it proves abuse because it demonstrates a time skew," or whatever the poppycock that argument says, is easily one of the worst arguments I have ever heard. Do not go for this argument unless it is dropped throughout the round. If you do go for it, then expect your speaker points to get tanked harder than an army of Panzers.
 * (B) Theory / Procedural Arguments:**

I will usually vote on theory that is dropped or severely mishandled throughout the debate. It is not my fault if debaters cannot answer dumb arguments. I understand the strategic purpose of running theory no-risk. I default to evaluating theory through a competing interpretations framework, but I am open to any other method of evaluating theory if it is advocated in the round. When debating theory, you must answer these two question for me: (1) What is it about this specific round that is particularly abusive as opposed to other rounds where the argument could have been run legitimately? (2) What are some cases / arguments that your opponent can (and cannot) run under your interpretation and why does that selection matter / why is that selection good? I believe that all theory standards ultimately collapse into ground and limits.

RVIs are dumb. However, given the time limits and speech structures of LD I may be fine with an RVI if it is well-warranted and if it is advocated with reference to the particular round in which it is being advocated. In other words, do not only give me abstract reasons why RVIs are good; that is impossible. Tell me why an RVI, //in this instance//, is good / necessary.

I love topicality debates with good evidence.

I will not go in-depth on policy related issues because I probably will not be judging many policy rounds. Just check out my policy coaches' paradigms (David Cram Helwich, Phil Samuels, Eli Brennan) and know that I am not the most knowledgeable in terms of the most recent trends or community norms. Also, I am not saying that I judge rounds exactly like my coaches, as if that were even possible, just know that I was influenced by them and their views on debate.

As far as policy rounds go in LD, just ask me questions whenever about whatever.

=III. Speaker points:= Because the LD community is impossible to change on the issue of speaker point inflation, I have changed. If I think you should clear and if I think you are really good: 29 or 29.5 If I think you could clear and if I think you are good: 28 or 28.5 If I think you should not clear and if I think you seriously failed to adapt to me: 27 or 27.5 If I think you should not clear and if I think you are in the wrong division: 26 or 26.5 Ask me before the round if you want to know what it takes to receive a 30.

Since I do not want blind people to be excluded from the activity I do not value presentation (standing/sitting, dressing up/down, etc.). PLEASE be as intellectually ruthless to your opponent as you possibly can. If your opponent cries in round, then it better be because they were completely destroyed argumentatively and not because you were mean. Regardless, the less tears the better. However!, the one exception for tears is if I am judging you in the home economics classroom and you are sautéing onions for the preparation of serving me a foie gras polpettone ([1]AC), Ortolan (1AR), and pot de cr è me for dessert (2AR). P.S. This is something that could earn you a 30.

High speaker points will be awarded for:
 * intelligent in-depth argumentation on a variety of issues
 * comparisons between arguments that are cognizant of the unique aspects of the arguments made in round
 * time allocation
 * strategic choices
 * round crystallization / argument prioritization
 * being funny (jokes, ironic insights, clever metaphors, similes, and analogies)
 * comparisons of all kinds
 * disad-turns-case type arguments
 * turns, especially of the impact and internal link variety
 * nuanced arguments that are tailored to your opponent's arguments; do not just read your generic argz or your blox
 * responding to the best possible version/articulation of your opponent's arguments instead of saying "hahaha my opponent forgot a "not" in his argument. stoopid debater, i win!"
 * having lots of warrants and/or internal links for a single argument
 * collapsing your final rebuttal to a few issues and allocating the majority of your time to them

Things I do not like: doing these well will get you low speaker points and may decrease your chances of winning:
 * **INCOMPLETE CITATIONS AND NOT FULL CARD TEXT**
 * debating poorly
 * debates about moral permissibility
 * not giving a shit
 * being mean to someone who's obviously worse than you and who you'll crush. by all means crush him or her or it or whatever the thing wants to be called, just do not be an asshole about it
 * defense-heavy strategies
 * intentional deception. ive seen it all and I have done it all myself. you will not fool me
 * unnecessary evasion of cross-ex questions. by all means be hilariously evasive in cross-ex if your opponent's questions are ambiguous and if your opponent is fishing for links
 * using theory as a crutch because you suck at debate. ill be able to tell so just dont do it. if you enter a round with the intention of trying to find something to run theory on, good, whatever, just realize that it shouldn't be the strat/flow/argument on which you rely

IV. Things I Hate / Suggestions (written four years ago and still relevant...)
__The current state of end-round debating__: crystallization is very important. I do not care how you do it (as an overview, at the end of your speech, while you are extending arguments), but you absolutely must prioritize the arguments in the round; mere extensions get you nowhere. Comparisons should be cognizant of the **__//particularities//__** of the specific AFF/NEG arguments in the round. In other words, never argue in generalities. Sometimes at the end of the round there is absolutely no comparison between arguments. How am I supposed to know whether saving lives is more important than protecting rights? When I am in a position that requires me to intervene, my weighing standards will always include quality of eye contact, conviction of posture, and uniqueness of hand gestures used while the argument was delivered. You may think this is unfair, but at least it is not as absurd as putting the judge in such a position.

__The current state of how arguments are weighed__: when debaters weigh (if at all), they usually say something like: "Extend my argument. It outweighs on magnitude because it is big and affects everyone (i.e. the definition of magnitude). It also outweighs on probability and time frame - both immediacy and long term because [enter respective definitions of weighing standards]." The obvious question to ask is: "What does your argument outweigh?" and the answer is: "Your opponent's arguments..." Please tell me why your argument comparatively outweighs your opponent's arguments on strength of link, credibility of author, whatever, as opposed to saying it simply outweighs in a vacuum. Be comparative.

__Timers__: stealing prep time gets on my nerves. You cannot fool me. When it is time to give your speech you better get up like Viagra.

__Responses__: weak defensive arguments like, "no warrant," "no brightline," "no empirical evidence," especially when made against a decent argument with evidence, make me want to go Patrick Bateman on you. Do not say "he cannot solve poverty because the causes of poverty are complex." Instead, you should make warranted "alternate cause" arguments (i.e. poverty will happen anyway because the AFF does not deal with X Y Z causes of poverty). Also, do not make arguments like "his standard/criterion/framework is bad because it does not have a brightline." Although this seems like an argument, it is not. It is missing several key components: an impact, a warrant for why brightlines are important, and most importantly of all, a comparative analysis articulating why I should prefer your standard (ideally because it has a brightline). Whenever you make an argument, make it as comparative as possible.

__The current state of using the concept of "contrapositivity" when giving the negative a burden:__ if you are neg and are given the burden of proving the contrapositive of the resolution just say "extend the entire aff case for him/her because the contrapositive of a statement is equivalent with that statement." You could even give a deduction. For instance:

S -> T

- - - - -
¬T -> ¬S valid

a. S -> T premise b. ¬(S ^ ¬T) SE, def. of -> c. ¬(¬T ^ S) SE, CL d. ¬(¬T ^ ¬¬S) SE, CR e. ¬T -> ¬S SE, def. of -> (conclusion)

Essentially, the contrapositive of a conditional proposition switches the antecedent and the consequent and then negates both. For example, the contrapositive of "if it is raining, then the grass is wet" is "if the grass is not wet, then it's not raining." The contrapositive of any true proposition is also true. Please do not use the term "contrapositive" unless you are using the term correctly, and if you are using the word "contrapositive," then why not use the much cooler yet still similar in meaning, though out of context in usage, "isomorphic"? [As a side note, this isn't an issue anymore as it was in 2007 when AFF debaters would say "the NEG has the prima facie burden to prove the contrapositive of the resolution."]

=V. Seriously, why did you read this?!= Fortunately my college debate 'career' is not well-known in the high school LD community, and even more fortunately I am not a person who had a tremendously impressive debate 'career' as a high school student. This means that you are not indiscriminately categorizing me as a 1 on your MJPs. Since you are in this sinking boat, it is imperative that you keep reading. It has become apparent to me that my paradigm is read for exactly three, and only three, reasons: (1) you want to learn about my paradigm to gauge how likely it is that I will vote for you if I judge you; (2) you love debate and want to expose yourself to ideas about debate; (3) you are trying to find a reason why I'm a bad judge. Since there's a 94.3% chance that you fall into category numero uno I will make your decision INCREDIBLY EASY. Here are ten mutually reinforcing reasons why you should automatically strike me at ANY tournament whether it be local, regional, national, round robin, or whatever:

(1) I will be tired. Although I have never seen a doctor about my sleeping habits, chances are that I have conditioned myself to be nocturnal. This means that I rarely get any sleep while at a tournament. This impairs my ability to flow and my ability to comprehend the simplest arguments. (2) I will be uninterested. It may be surprising for you to read this, but I actually do read articles on the topic. I cut hundreds of cards for my debaters per topic and I regularly compile thousands of other cards which could be important. Also, I judge far too many rounds per topic. All of this contributes to my general disinterest in your debate round. I've seen all of your arguments before and debaters are boringly predictable. (3) I will be distracted. Guess what? I have a laptop. Of course, when in public I will say that having a computer helps me flow. I am not lying when I say that I can type 130 WPM and can keep up with the fastest debaters even if they are unclear. However, a laptop keeps me sane during rounds by allowing me to go on Gmail, chat with friends, read articles, watch stimulating videos, and play Family Feud on Facebook. (4) I will be hungry. Let it be known that my deadly sin of choice is not gluttony. When I was 5 my favorite deadly sin was vanity. Ain't got shhh to do with this, but I just thought that I should mention. There are few things I love more than eating food. Especially free food. And when it is free my sophisticated pallet gets cut off faster than a Van Gogh ear. Especially at debate tournaments. You may not know this, but the judges' lounge is heaven. Not only because of the aforementioned free food, but because it is also an exclusive club -- no debaters allowed! (5) I will be a hack. I have friends in debate who I like more than you and I want these friends to beat you. If you are debating one of my friends, and I have too many of them, then you will probably lose. Friendship is thicker than adjudicative objectivity. Always. No exceptions. Ever! Even if my friend drops the argument that extinction happens tomorrow. (6) I will intervene. I average throwing out 10 well-warranted, conceded arguments per round. For every tournament I judge there is at least one argument which I throw out in all rounds. This is also the argument I vote on when I judge finals and all the other rounds at the tournament. In these rounds I tell the debater how intelligent s/he is and how life-changing the argument was. I also fancy not listening to the round and making up an RFD. When the debaters ask me a question about my supposedly incongruous RFD I storm out of the room and automatically give them both 17.5 speaker points. (7) I will be psychotic. Psychosis: any severe mental disorder in which contact with reality is lost or highly distorted. I think this perfectly encapsulates the culture of the debate community: an exceptionally welcoming assemblage of amazingly unique individuals who are all mouthwateringly intelligent, distastefully attractive, and brilliantly fascinating. Luckily not a single one of these individuals is pathologically competitive because that would really suck and ruin debate for the people who truly love the activity. Thank god for the free food in the judges' lounge. And for Maeshal Abid <3 (8) I will be annoyed, angered, and negatively astounded. Everything you do will trigger at least one of these emotions/reactions in me. Now riddle me this: is judging novice and JV rounds like watching college sports? Yes! For exactly three, and only three, reasons: (1) the debaters are genuinely trying (in college sports they put it all on the line for school spirit); (2) the debaters are making pseudo-arguments (in college sports they run semi-coherent plays), (3) you can never predict what's going to happen next! I become more excited about these rounds than any varsity round because it is impossible to be relatively certain that a debater will go for the one argument that will allow you to make a 1 second decision. These rounds figuratively keep me on the edge of my seat and are the definition of entertainment. The varsity pool, on the other hand, is full of debaters who either (a) I am surprised made it past kindergarten or (b) are unforgivably pretentious, obnoxious, and vainglorious and who communicate in a magniloquent manner in order to impress others and demonstrate their inherent superiority in the most important activity that the universe has ever had the pleasure of containing: high school Lincoln-Douglas debate. The worst thing about this second type of debater is that they usually end anything they are about to say with an annoyingly long final section which rants about something entirely unrelated to the purpose of the conversation and which blurs the line between truth, fiction, and sarcasm. Luckily judge paradigms steer clear from this necessary but insufficient condition of social dyslexia and irrationality. This is a pre-apriori reason to strike me because it means my paradigm is inherently false, illogical, nonsensical, and contradictory. This is an a priori because I am a judge before I am a human, logic is king, discourse shapes reality, and Sarah Palin's backyard is Russia. (9) I will be the worst judge in the pool. I am lazy, unpredictable, dumb, and overrated. This is just true. I see no reason to explicate further. (10) I will be asleep.