Metz,Jeff

__**Judging Philosophy: Jeffrey Aaron Metz…..aka “METZ”**__ __**Background**__: Debate Coach: Oak Park River Forest High School – 2009 –

I am extensively researching the 2010-2011 TOPIC daily including helping OPRF cut strategies and arguments. I have a 9-5 job in the business world full-time which means that I come with a different perspective because I live in a non-debate world as well. I am only involved in debate because I love the activity and I am passionate for the education that only debate research and argumentation can provide. I believe that there is nothing in the world like policy debate. I am here today for you the policy debater!

I have 8 years of policy debate experience – I debated in many elimination debates including at the NDT, Kentucky, Wake Forest, Kansas, UNI, Central Oklahoma, CEDA Nationals, and many more.

Glenbrook South High School 1992-1996 – Southern Illinois University 1996-2000 IAM AN OLD MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tabula rasa (Latin: blank slate) refers to the epistemological thesis that individuals are born without built-in mental content and that their knowledge comes from experience and perception.
 * __Philosophy__**

When judging a debate I try as hard as I can to be a blank slate and let the debate and the flow decide how I should vote – I try not to intervene but if you don’t weigh impacts, I will be forced to. I don’t really believe that anything is “true” in a debate round until you tell me it is. In fact, I don’t even claim to know what a debate is – It might be a speech act, educational activity, a soap box, or a good way to kill a Saturday….YOU TELL ME!!! Please be clear, and explain why I should vote for you. I love impact analysis and think it is my favorite part of debate. This is especially important in theory debates. I also value line by line and the technical side of the activity so I don’t intervene. If you don’t tell me why to vote for you, you leave it to me to decide and all bets are off because I have distorted views on life (joke) Below you will find my default general philosophies on various issues. I tend to only use this stuff if you don’t debate well. You should run what you want, this is your activity…..I am just judging in it.


 * __Arguments – An old mans rant__**
 * Impacts need uniqueness** – If you are still reading impact cards from 1990 and the impact hasn’t happened yet……..it’s not going to. The global economy has stagnated….and even shrunk Mr. Bailey. Khalizad and Diamond are talking about countries that don’t even exist anymore kids!


 * Critiques** - When ran well they are great, when ran poorly, they are without question the worst debates to watch. I tend to have a low probability for voting for generic critiques that apply to the status quo and the affirmative. If the alternative to the critique doesn’t solve the affirmative and the case is a disadvantage to the critique, then you’re in trouble, especially if you concede the affirmative in the 2NR. I think that since a critique is a more complex argument it carries with it a higher expectation to be explained more in depth then the states counterplan would. Your overview should be why the case in context links to the critique or that the specific assumptions behind the affirmative or harm area are uniquely bad. I like critical arguments; I just don’t find myself being convinced by them that often. If you stand up in your speech and read a bunch of philosophy cards for 8 minutes and don’t put it all together for me in a coherent argument, I am not doing it for you. I am not Plato folks, I never studied philosophy accept during one into eastern religion class at SIU. I didn’t run a lot of critiques either, so don’t assume I know your argument. I also think you need to go line-by-line in a critique debate. If you run the capitalism critique and you drop cap good turns – you lose – it’s that simple – Cap isn’t bad if it prevents extinction. I am not willing to make huge philosophical leaps for you because you use an ism. I also in general think you have to have a plan that uses the USFG.


 * Theory** – Topicality is a good argument, you have to be topical – Conditionality is questionable. ASPEC and OSPEC are pretty stupid. Besides that I don’t really think too many theory arguments are voting issues, more of a reason to reject the argument. Please have clash with theory debates, don’t just read blocs.


 * Counterplans** – I love them – Don’t go for two in the 2NR and I am not sure that even running two is acceptable at all. Besides that, I have a pretty high tolerance threshold for abuse and find most affirmative abuse claims to be complaints not arguments. However, I don’t believe that just any net benefit checks abuse, you need a solvency advocate for your C/P.

none //Optional:// comment for page history
 * Don’t steal prep, Have fun, Be friendly.**

Looking for tags? Tagging pages is now done in a new place. Once you have saved your changes, click on the "Page" tab and select "Details and Tags".Help · About · Blog · Terms · Privacy · [|**Support**] · [|**Upgrade**]Contributions to http://jeffmetz.wikispaces.com are licensed under a [|Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 License].
 * Cancel ||