Saltzman,+Jake


 * Jake Saltzman**
 * Affiliation: Anderson High School (TX)**
 * Glenbrook South '11**
 * University of Texas '15**

I haven't updated this for a while. A lot of my views on debate have changed in the 2+ years since I last updated this. My old philosophy is below, some of it is still relevant, but a lot of it isn't.
 * Glenbrooks '14 Philosphy**
 * I judge predominantly at local tournaments in the Austin area. I generally judge at 2-3 national tournaments a year. I have never worked at a debate camp.
 * I am a hybrid of the two places I have debated (GBS and UT). A lot of the policy arguments I read in high school I continued to read in college, but I also began reading arguments like anthro and risk.
 * I don't consider myself ideological not because I think I am particularly unbiased (there are obviously certain arguments I like/don't like more than others) but because I genuinely don't care about upholding some specific idea of debate. It's a little trite, but I truly believe what makes debate superior to any other academic activity is the breadth of arguments it requires you to understand and engage with.
 * I am a better judge for structural critiques (Capitalism, Anthropocentrism, etc.) or critiques of debate practices (Risk, Afro-Pessimism) than I am of high-theory critiques.
 * My default is not to kick a counterplan/K alt for the neg. I will only do so if the neg made the argument for me to do so and the aff didn't answer it/lost the debate about whether I should do it or not.
 * I am a slow typer. If you are reading a theory block very fast or giving your 2NR/2AR at the speed you would read the text of a card, it is unlikely I will get down all of what you said.
 * Aesthetics matter a lot to me, much more so than when I started judging. How nice you sound, how you interact with your partner, how persuasive you are, etc. all matter a decent amount for speaker points, and, invariably to some degree, for whether or not I vote for you.
 * In "clash of civs" debates, my voting record would probably indicate the following -- 1) I am slightly "left"-leaning if a team goes for framework against a "performance" team (this is partially execution, partially ideology), 2) I am almost completely in the middle if a team goes for any other argument against a "performance team". I think teams often do a very poor job of answering afro-pessimism arguments, and find myself very frequently voting on arguments about false neutrality, etc. I also think a decent number of afro-pessimism teams don't do a great job of establishing a link against critical affs, and have probably voted aff more than neg in those debates as a result.
 * Some of my favorite judges are Jason Russell, Bruce Miller, Gabe Murillo, and Malcolm Gordon.


 * Old Philosophy**

Background-I debated at Glenbrook South High School in a suburb of Chicago for four years, I was a 2N for 3 of those and a 2A for my senior year. As a 2N I went for some variation of a disad and either case or a counterplan in 85-90% of my 2nr's. On the aff, I read a big sticky policy aff for 3 years, my junior year I read a Fasching/homelessness aff. At Texas I read a policy aff and go primarily for risk-based critique arguments on the neg.

The following are some views I hold about debate that I think influence how I make decisions-

-A single case defense argument that is well explained/impacted can take out an entire advantage. Most judges tend to think defense arguments are at best 'case pushes' that can mitigate the risk of an advantage, I tend to think that certain arguments, if won, reduce the risk of an advantage to near zero. Smart analytic arguments can reduce the risk of an aff advantage to near zero.

-If I can't understand the text of a card I will say clear, if you continue I will say clear once more. I will still attempt to flow after that, but I will not call for cards that I could not understand a reasonable amount of the text for.

-Structural/overarching uniqueness arguments, if well-warranted, are often sufficient to beat hyper-specific cards that do not take into account the events talked about in the more generic card. This means arguments like politics link uniqueness thumpers probably work better in front of me than most.

-I am a substandard flow-er-I'm better with a computer, but still below average I think. Take that as you will, it probably means front-loading arguments is especially critical and going slower on T/Theory.

-While I think most examples of offense/defense are extreme, if a counterplan solves 100% of the aff and there is a net-benefit that the aff only has defense on, my default is to vote neg, even if the aff wins almost 100% defense on the net-benefit. Aff explanations of why the perm would be better/solve in these situations are very important.

-To go for critiques in front of me you need to a) not treat the alternative like an afterthought in the 2NR, b) be technical, don't not respond to arguments, etc. I am familiar-ish with certain critique arguments though by no means proficient (anthro, risk theory, etc.) but just about any critique named after a given author I have not read.


 * -**Super-technical theory debates are nearly impossible to flow.You need to slow down. Exclusively reading blocks will probably not get you very far. I think conditionality is probably not a good thing if 3+ advocacies are being read, questionably a good thing if 2 are being read, probably, though not definitely, a good thing if 1 is being read. Sympathetic to aff arguments against states (both perm solves the link and theory), but definitely not a foregone conclusion.

-Consult/delay/stuff premised off of non-mandates of plan-bad, these can be beaten on simple competition/permutation arguments.

-Paperless stuff- Prep ends when you say it does, once you are done assembling your cards in paper debate there is no next step that requires prep, so I don't know why saving a speech should either. I trust that you are not violating my trust by abusing this in the same way I assume that you are not doing a series of other things that constitute cheating-don't make me be skeptical, I totally understand weird computer situations, but I do begin to get skeptical after a certain long amount of dead time. Reading ahead is cheating, like, real 'you will get bad speaker points and possibly lose' type of cheating. Don't. With all of that being said, as a paperless team, you have an obligation to cater to your opponent's wants to a certain extent, especially if they are a paper team-if they ask for you to jump it directly to their computer, do it. I find squad policies regarding jumping to other teams burdensome, if you are really so concerned that the team you are debating will steal your highlighting or that one super secret card that was so deadly you didn't get to it in the 2AC you have much larger issues. I perceive this as you attempting to inhibit your opponent from having an optimal debate environment, and that will reflect on your speaker points.

-My default is not to kick the counterplan for the neg if the 2AR wins a permutation argument, but that is obviously debatable.

-I don't have particularly strong views on topicality, 2NC/1NR's that impact their education/limits/ground arguments with cards are better than those that don't. I am probably slightly aff leaning on questions of reasonability/competing interpretations.


 * -**I view the debate in a holistic manner-generally think an argument is not new if its a cross-application, even with a decent amount of new spin, it is situational, but I am pretty liberal. If this is happening in the 2AR, spend time justifying it. But its the other team's burden to cover their butt and close all possible doors.

-Speaker points are constantly evolving during the debate. I instantly make a judgement about what speaker points you should get from the minute you start debating, whether it be cross-x or a constructive. Good rebuttals probably o/w good constructives, but both play an important role. I do not think it is fair for me to punish teams who read bad arguments with their points, teams who cannot produce tons of evidence should not be punished for having to rely on generic arguments. BUT-good, innovative arguments=+ for points.Some specifics-


 * Humor-**There are a lot of jokes/incidents about me-that's fine to use in a speech, I'm not going to punish you because you butchered the //Aleman!// story, there's probably only a risk that some humor benefits an otherwise boring speech. I will not be offended, I am a pretty self-deprecating guy.


 * Pet Peeves-**Inefficient debaters who say phrases like 'we're always going to win'(die a little bit inside), debaters who think imbedded clash is an excuse not to answer arguments or nuances in your opponents arguments, tag-line extensions, stealing prep, disorganized debaters, and paperless teams who refuse to allow their speech to be viewed in the most convenient way by their opponent.