Marcus,+Ryan

I am affiliated with Los Alamos High School (New Mexico) and Catalina Foothills (Arizona).

Any judge who says they aren't predisposed to one "camp" or another is a liar.

The **most important thing** in any debate is **reasons**. "This BECAUSE that" is far better than "this." Have warrants, and better //explanation// of those warrants than your opponent, and you will likely get my ballot. See section marked "reasons."

I debated for 8 years. I've read Ks, CPs, DAs, T, and a whole lot of case turns. During my last two years of debate, I read a critical affirmative (no plan text) and mostly Ks on the negative.

I've completed a bachelors in computer science and gender studies.

Specific questions can be asked before the round, but also feel free to email me: ryan@rmarcus.info

//Tabula rasa:// I am not "tab ras." No one is "tab ras." What a blank slate looks like is relative to one's understanding of a blank slate. I believe the flow is important, but I am open to arguments suggesting I disregard the flow. I believe that some arguments (like "rape good") gain 0 traction and lead to a speaker point deduction, if not a ballot for the other side. Some judges believe that the K has no place in debate but still consider themselves "tab ras." I think the K has a place in debate.
 * THE LIES YOU'VE BEEN TOLD ON JUDGE PARADIGMS:**

//High/medium/low threshold on theory//: as with all arguments, the ethos and pathos used to present them is relevant. I'll want to vote for your theory arguments more if there is actual abuse, and less if it seems "dirty" or "dumb." For me, dropped theory is almost always convincing, **as long as it is a reason to reject a team, not an argument. "Severance perms bad" is a reason to reject a permutation, not a team. "Condo bad" is a reason to reject a team.** You should try to prioritize substance over theory when possible.

//Absolutely anything involving "the K":// to some people, the K is a "strategy bad" argument. For others, it is a utopia CP with a linear DA. For me, it is a particular criticism of an epistemological ontological, or axiological system and a proposed alternative system. Examples: Heidegger (ontological), feminism (epistemological or axiological), Marxism (epistemological), psychoanalysis (epistemological), Irigary (ontological), Queer Theory (epistemological). More notes about the K are below.

//I am/am not an "offense defense" judge:// everyone has different standards for "0 risk." For me, this is wildly round dependent. A conceded link is probably a link. I say probably, because it could be really dumb. If a CP solves 100% of the aff, I need to hear why an unlikely net benefit deserves my ballot. This should not be difficult for the negative to accomplish.

I cannot believe how many high school debates I've seen that included little to no warrants. Most debaters seem to have an idea that a warrant is some mystical creature that lives inside of their cards, and that I, as the judge, have a responsibility to wrangle these rare unicorns out of their hiding places post-round. This is not the case.
 * Reasons**

Example: "Econ is recovering -- business confidence up, Pew poll." This is statement has both a claim and a warrant, but it isn't a very good explanation. This is a perfectly acceptable TAG, but it is not very good rebuttal-level analysis.

Instead, consider: "The economy is recovering now -- a Pew poll indicating increased business confidence means that capital flow is increasing. A record number of mergers and acquisitions this year show that CEOs are starting to think long-term again. When the bulk of business leaders begin to look long-term, spending is unlikely to decrease, and the economy is likely to grow." This is much, much better analysis. If a team says "econ is recovering -- we have 5 cards!" and the other team says "econ not recovering -- we have 7 cards!", I will not really have any basis for comparing the two claims and will likely reach a decision that seems arbitrary.

If the affirmative team gives the improved explanation I gave above, and the negative team says "econ not recovering -- we have X cards," I will vote affirmative for any value of X.


 * This is extremely important.** I have seen smart debaters beat teams that were //far// more technically adapt than they were by simply giving **reasons** and **explanations** for their arguments.

When you advance an //epistemological K//, I need to understand why their knowledge production is (a) bad and (b) WRONG. Everyone seems to forget about the "wrong" part. The feminism K might identify tropes of terrorism as "masculine" (bad) and "a product of a system of hypermasculinization that told us Mexico would invade California in 2005" (wrong). I also need to know how the alternative resolves this.
 * "The K"**

When you advance an //ontological K,// I need to understand what the "subjects" of the affirmative's system are, and why that selection of subject is wrong. The Heidegger K might argue that the affirmative ignores Being by revealing the world as a purely knowable entity. One might argue that a concealment of Being's infiniteness occurs when the affirmative reduces racism to "a mere issue of transportation." I also need to know what the ontology of the alternative is: what subjects does the alternative consider?

When you advance an //axiological K,// I need to know what about the affirmative's moral system is bad. The capitalism K might argue that the affirmative "puts more power into the hands of high-speed rail manufactures" as part of a "substructure of exploitation." I then need to know how the alternative resolves these issues, either axiologically or epistemologically.


 * Other information / Cliff notes:**

Humor is fine. I love puns. I DO NOT TOLERATE RUDENESS. If that's your style, strike me, because I'll drop you. More below.

I really like how Adam Symonds and Omar Guevara approach debate and judging. Tim Alderete has a special place in my heart -- I really like his thoughts on the debate community and debate space in general, as well as the K. Of course, he's a great judge as well.

Not OK. I agree with Omar Guevara: debate requires professionalism. Calling your opponents stupid or "tools" will likely result in you losing. If you are on the receiving end up the rudeness, don't complain, that'll just sound like whining. Ignore it and get to the relevant issues.
 * Rudeness:**

I'm a feminist, I enjoy long walks on the beach, and I'm a strong supporter of man love. Even with women.