Svoboda,+Dru


 * Judging Philosophy**: Dru Svoboda (Updated: November, 2010)


 * Affiliation**: Wayzata High School


 * **Background**: **


 * I debated for Wayzata High School on the National C ircuit for 4 years and attended the TOC in my senior year. I am a first year out and have been judging locally for two years. **

I have debated from every position and am comfortable with a broad range of arguments. I encourage you to focus less of your strategy on adapting to what you think i will prefer and to instead do what you do best.

Debates should be intellectual, competitive and most importantly fun. Jerks will win rounds but will not get the speaker points they feel they deserve in front of me. You will however be rewarded for focusing on warrants, evidence comparison, and an extensive knowledge of quality evidence. Generally, I prefer fewer pieces of qualified evidence that demonstrate specific arguments and logical comparison that explores the interaction between these arguments. "Card Wars" with thousands of claims made but no warrants extended past the Constructives make me want to die inside. (This is not to say I do not appreciate expansive debates with many cards and arguments but serves more as a warning not to bite off more then you can chew.)

I love technical debates but i believe that Macro level comparisons in the end game make all the difference to me. In depth articulation of impacts that maybe extends beyond the realm of TPM go a long way towards framing the final outcome of a debate in my mind. That being said i will get into some of the specifics.


 * Specific Arguments:**


 * Topicality:** Topicality is a fairly effective argument that tends to get under utilized in debate. I tend to view it within a competing interpretations frame, but I can be convinced to adopt an abuse based standard. Again, this is all about controlling the implicit framework of the debate. The merits of the definition and its ability to limit the topic and provide substantive education usually are what determine the winner of T debates. *__Reading cards__* on topicality and explaining why your interpretation is more contextual and more literature based are both incredibly important arguments.


 * Theory**: I am maybe within a small community of judges that actually enjoy theory debates. But dear god help your soul if you throw your blocks at each other at 500 wpm and expect me to figure it out. Theory is about logical and intelligent comparisons between standards. Theory debates should be impacted and should include discussion of what the realm of debate would look like with this as the standard theoretical default. I have a fairly high threshold for *__reject the argument, not the team__* saying it dose not equal "Oh you caught us cheating so we can kick it and pretend it never happened" to a reasonable extent i am more subjectively bias towards voting on theoretical objections to abusive or artificially competitive strategies.


 * Counterplans:**

A wise man once said....


 * "Pretty big fan of the good old CP, although the modern day counterplan appears to be code for advanced cheating 101. Make sure your counterplan solves a solid chunk of the affirmative, because I consider myself amenable to affirmative solvency deficit arguments absent evidence at the level of specificity of the aff. (Similarly, if the aff has no defense of their agent or answer to a PIC, I’m probably going to vote negative). PICs and word PICs are fine, but be sure you have specific evidence on them (the ideal standard on the word PIC is a card that calls for the replacement of one term with another). **


 * My default position on counterplan competition and theory is to lean negative, but to be more than willing to swat down truly abusive negative arguments or to reward truly outstanding theoretical objections to the CP. I wouldn’t recommend going for a theoretical objection to a counterplan unless you feel you’ve achieved one of these two objectives." - Talon Powers. **

So ill go with that.


 * Disads:**
 * Remember that thing called the case? case turns and solvency take outs should accompany every disad debate. It is going to take a pretty epic and specific DA for me to vote on a strategy that dose not include these positions on the impact level of comparison. I **** would not put myself into the cult of uniqueness (where risk of a link and a counterplan justifies a snap negative ballot), but uniqueness questions are very important for both sides. Be sure to test the uniqueness of both the link AND the impact when affirming. **


 * Case:** Case debates <3. Knowing more about the case then the team reading it is a great way to win a round in my mind. READ THE OTHER TEAM’S EVIDENCE! I give a lot of weight to pointing out limiting contradictions in evidence. I appreciate analytical take outs to semi applicable and mediocre cards.


 * Critical Args**: I debated a critical affirmative and negative in most debates. As a negative team, be sure to leverage as much link and alternative specificity as possible to answer back the claims of aff solvency outweighing the relatively minor risk of the criticism. An effective critique debater should be able to use both framing questions (what comes first, what issues get prioritized, etc) along with standard impact comparison (K makes the world go boom) in order to better leverage their argument against the affirmative.

As the affirmative, I tend to reward teams who are willing to leverage their arguments against a critique instead of trying to hide behind framework positions. Cut a defense of your methodology (the general framework we use in approaching the world), epistemology (the language we use to describe that world), and ontology (our purpose for existing in the world) and be willing to use these cards as offense in K debates. Also be sure to use relative speed of impacts and specificity of solvency as trumps against a more generic worldview.

**Style:**

Debate promotes skills in articulation and linguistics as much as anything else, however i often feel that speaking style is drastically underrated in highly competitive rounds. The ability to speak passionately on a given subject, draw from personal experiences, and add comical effect with wit is highly rewardable and will be reflected in your speaker points.

****Personal**:**

I wanna be the very best Judge, Like no one ever was To get post-rounded by them is my real test To train them is my cause! I will travel across the land Searching far and wide To teach Highschool De-ba-ters to understand The Power of incite. OH! Highschool De-ba-ters, Gotta Judge'em all!

Thank you for taking the time to read it this far through. Ideally at this point i would like to tell you that you can contact me with any of your questions but realistically i have very little access to phones and internet so good luck ^_^