Karlovic,+John

I was a LD debater for a public school in Florida (Winter Springs) and have been a NDT policy debater for the University of Pittsburgh for 4.5 or so years now. Since I could potentially be in both the LD and policy pool, there are different sections for each. To that end I think of myself as a policy debater and that will inevitably frame how I view debate rounds regardless of what activity in particular I am judging.

A debate is a debate. If you want the short and skinny of my philosophy: I essentially don’t care what arguments you make and how you make them as you as debaters are way more invested in your activity than I am. I just have the job of determining who the winner is, your job is to tell me why you should be the winner – so do what you need to do to accomplish that goal.
 * Meta** **Issues:**

Each of the sections is rather wordy and I apologize if you’re trying to cram this in before the round but I wanted to be thorough on the areas I think are important. The rest is up to you.

If you specific questions about an argument please feel to ask – I’ll certainly tell you how I feel about it.


 * Theory/T:**

My default for all theory debates is competing interpretations – I think theory debates are under utilized in most areas and tend to be silly blippy block comparisons in the end. I think that if you win an interpretation of whatever particular debate practice you think is unfair or whatever and that interpretation is better than your opponent’s (net beneficial, outweighs, etc) then you win. Ultimately everything impacts back to fairness (please don’t ramble about education or ‘more real world’) and I am easily convinced there is no real distinction between potential and actual abuse. I do not think reasonability is a strong argument and unless there is an argument otherwise theory precedes substance in evaluation. Finally, I have no problem applying Occam’s Razor to debate rounds – if there is an out that has a claim, a warrant, and an impact that is conceded – I will take it. Do not however take this to mean that a shotgun style approach to theory is going to instantly get my ballot, I just have a low threshold for what constitutes a ‘cheap shot’. I love plan flaw and those kinds of args. No really, I do.


 * Counterplans:**

Generally speaking, CPs are the way to go these days for negatives in the straight up debate. I’m not particularly convinced that dispo is bad, or that conditionality is the worst thing ever – I often waiver between these two. Unconditionality is unstrategic. Despite my trigger happy tendencies on theory, don’t be afraid to take strategic risks – good defenses of good strategic thinking will always beat blocks. Otherwise, run whatever CP you want and defend that choice, from word PICs to the anarchy CP, I’m down.


 * The K/Performance:**

Anyone who knows me as a debater would probably say I’m a K hack, probably because that’s about all I do as a college debater. They might be right in some sense – I do read critical theory as an academic pursuit and enjoy thinking and talking about it; however, I think this often works against debaters because they often have no idea what they’re talking about and I won’t be very sympathetic to your trite and uncritical approach to Agamben, Lacan, Foucault, or whoever is en vogue in high school debate right now.

That aside, the ‘critical’ side of debate is totally cool with me and I will be happy to judge it – particularly if you have a good grasp of how the theories of whatever thinker you’re talking about interact with arguments in the debate and focus your efforts on applying the theory to the context of the AFF or debate, or whatever a particular debate happens to mold into.

Oftentimes these debates will come down to framework – have nuanced defenses of your interpretation of what debate should be or offense against your opponent’s framework and you’ll be fine. Personally, I think the distinctions we draw between ‘civilizations’ of debate are arbitrary and pejorative but that does not mean certain formations of arguments are fair. In other words, I am way more likely to vote a nuanced and critical policymaking framework than I am for some vague argument that’s not well explained in the same way that I am way more likely to vote a nuanced critical interrogation of frameworks of political action than a collection of Muir and Shivelly cards hobbled around some generic policymaking framework. Explanation and specificity people – whatever you argument is.


 * Miscellaneous:**

I think humor is effective in debates and I love (good) pop culture references, particularly movies and cartoons. I think debates tend to be way intense, often just on the edges of anger and aggression and while I don’t want to say these are not effective debate strategies, humor often goes a long way to make it a more pleasure experience for everyone (and you won’t be so boring). I tend to be an expressive person when judging debates although I often have much different reactions to things than other people mostly due to my odd sense of humor. I only tell you this as a warning not to take all my reactions quite so literally.


 * LD SPECIFIC STUFF**

I tend to be progressive when it comes to LD – I think speed is totally fine, not having a value and/or a criterion is not necessarily bad in my mind, and all the things that are constitutive of traditional LD debate are not givens or requirements for the debaters. Straight refutation is ok for negatives if it is offensive – impact turns to the aff are an easy way to a negative ballot in my mind. Tell me how to construct the order of evaluation in your final speech – do not leave me to make my own judgments about how I think your arguments interact. LD is certainly an activity where preround questions about how I feel about styles of argumentation or how arguments interact will greatly elucidate how I judge LD rounds. ATimmons and Michael Mangus are my LD heroes.