Fox,+Patrick

Howdy. Fourth year debater, 1 year in policy at Kealing Magnet MS, Austin, TX, 2 years Policy and LD at Jack C. Hays HS, Buda, TX. In year 4 now (as of Fall 2017), I mostly do LD these days but I keep up with policy and I do it every once in a while. At the moment this page is only up for when I judge novice at locals. Feel free to ask me whatever specifics you want, but I tried to be pretty in-depth here.

You do you. **I'm good with whatever**, minus the highest of high-theory Ks. I've read everything from hard-right policy util affs to hard left ableism K affs to virtue ethics to Heidegger affs with Radiohead on top. I'm not gonna do any work on the flow for you. **Tech > Truth TO A DEGREE** (i.e: if an arg is obviously stupid/shaky my threshold will be v v low for answering it). Burden of rejoinder is prob not true, you need to prove your stuff true before I evaluate it. **Go** as **fast** as you want, **but** be **coherent. Please contextualize all weighing to the actual round, not just your pre-written overviews.** Tabula Rasa doesn't exist, but I'm fairly close to it. **I'll evaluate** arguments **however you tell me to** weigh them. Be polite, but assertive, unless you know your opponent well, in which case be a total ass. It's funnier that way. If you in any way 1 - cheat, or 2 - make debate an unsafe space for anyone participating **you will get an L-20.**
 * __TL;DR Version__ **
 * Ratings -**
 * Util/LARP - 1**
 * K - 1**
 * Topicality - 1**
 * Analytic Phil - 2**
 * Good theory - 3**
 * Stupid LD theory - 4**
 * Tricks - for kids. You are young adults. Grow the hell up.**

Also use this https://speechdrop.net/ k thanks

__**Eviden**ce n Stuff__
Sure I'll be on the email chain - pdfox0513@gmail.com but I reaaally prefer this - https://speechdrop.net/

I expect some sort of evidence sharing to be available //at all points in the round.// Flash, email, pocketbox, extra paper copies, whatever. "You can see during prep" doesn't count. Also use this https://speechdrop.net/ it's the greatest thing.

I'd like you to give me your evidence as well before you read it, but I won't look at it unless I have to. Debate is still a communicative activity. With that being said, I find I look at cards when deciding rounds more often than most, so it'll be easier if I just have them on hand.

IF YOU INTENTIONALLY CHEAT IN ANY WAY YOU WILL BE DROPPED WITH 0 SPEAKS. Cross-reading, fabricating evidence, and clipping cards are a no-no. However, accidentally skipping a line or two because you're a novice or whatever isn't cheating, that's just called reading too fast - you'll get speaks hella docked but that's it.

If you cut a card that's fine, just tell me where you marked it. Same goes for skipping cards.

**__Speaking/Argumentation__**
Be polite, yet assertive. You can cut your opponent off when it's your CX, but not tell them to shut up or hush unless they refuse to be quiet. You can intentionally waste time when being CXed, but I expect you to be quiet when your opponent says to. However, if you and your opponent are friends and that's made clear to me somehow, feel free to be a bit of an asshole. It's funny as fuck and provided you're not genuinely being mean, I'll love it.

Tech > Truth. There is no truth until you tell me so.

Be confident. Even if you know you've lost already, it'll do a lot for your speaks.

Be funny. Jokes can go a long way for your ethos as a speaker. They won't win you the round, but they'll help your speaks.

I'm pretty generous with speaks for locals, just because a) I enjoy getting speaker awards and you probably do too, and b) I know that one bad speak round can totally kill your chance at the break. I allocate based more on strategy and argumentation than clarity and speaking skill, but if you're consistently incoherent/unclear then I'll probably dock a speak or so.

If you make debate an unsafe space in any way, i.e: whitey saying the N-word, calling something "retarded" (this happened to me once), calling your opponent a bitch, etc, **you will get an L-20 and I will try my best to get you DQd.** I really like how Richard Collings put it: **"I do not think there is ever an excuse for poor sportsmanship and that this comes before anything else because I believe as a community we should be working to develop young people who are more then just technically clever debaters, but well rounded human beings. I find it very curious and contradictory when individuals argue from a perspective of showing basic human compassion and respect to all people while refusing to extend this courtesy to the other competitor in the room."**

30 - I expect you to win the tournament or at least make finals. Brilliant job. Couldn't have done it better myself. 29.5 - I expect you to break pretty deep. A few issues but consistently very good overall. 29 - You deserve the break. Could've been a good bit better, but not too shabby by any metric. 28.5 - Eh. Average. You're on the better end of the pool, but possibly not //quite// outround material. You should break, but no promises. 28 - You messed up pretty consistently. Not terrible, but I don't think you'll get the break. Sorry kiddo. 27 - Just this side of terrible. Bad argumentation, no real analysis on what is what and what means what. This is normally reserved for speakers that force me to do flow work. Below 27 - You made me sad and I am now sad and now you are sad because your speaks are sad. 0 - You called your opponent a "trick ass ho," told me to take my ballot and shove it, threw your podium at me, and proceeded to run around the room screaming the lyrics to "Ripped my Pants" for 10 minutes. While very amused, my love of Spongebob will not save you from losing this round brutally. I jest, but seriously if you are at any point genuinely mean to your opponent or me, or you do something unethical (read: cheat), I will drop you with 0, speak to tabroom about you getting DQd, and I will be having words with your coach.
 * Speak Cheat**

And, considering this is the only reason you're here, I'm totally cool with speed. I'll call for clear as needed.

//**For LD**//
Framework is a must for me. I don't care whether it's a RotB/J, Standard, Value/Criterion, whatever, just have something. Contextual obligations are //very// convincing in front of me, i.e: "state is the resolutional actor, state has a unique obligation to use util" is gonna be more convincing to me than your generic-ass Korsgaard shell (not that Kantianism can't be applied to the state). Likewise, telling me "as an educator in the debate space you have a unique obligation to reject capitalism" is gonna be way better than "cap is unethical you should probably be ethical Zizek and Daly 04."


 * READMEREADMEREADMEREADME** Now that I have your attention, probably the most important part of my fwk paradigm. **I default to epistemic modesty.** What this means is that I weigh args based on the likelihood that any framework is true "multiplied" by the weight of an impact under that framework. Here's a really good explanation of why I do this from the blessed father BOvering himself - http://premierdebatetoday.com/2015/02/19/ethical-modesty-part-3-by-bob-overing-and-adam-bistagne/ but in a nutshell I also do this because I feel it forces debaters to do comparative weighing, which I reaaallly love to see. If you've ever read the Bostrom 09 card about the parliamentary model of ethics, that's what this is. **I am not saying I won't vote on epistemic confidence**, and I can be persuaded to do so. Just keep this in mind.

With that being said, all frameworks are true until you prove to me it's not, and I think there's a lot to be had for kicking your framework and winning on turns under your opponent's. If two frameworks //perfectly// cancel out or it's a wash, and somehow I still can't use epistemic modesty to resolve stuff, I'll assume util=trutil and go from there. Please don't make me do that though.

I'm a pretty hardcore util/LARP kid, probably the most so you'll ever meet, but I'll understand everything except for the most high phil frameworks. Some stuff I've gone for in the past is virtue ethics, libertarianism, Kant, state checks, contractarianism, structural violence stuff, rupturing static identities, agonism, will to power, democratic pragmatism, etc. So I understand phil stuff just fine, I just rarely run it. My coach is Adam Tomasi (#TomasiSwag), so although I'm nowhere as good as he was I think he's a pretty good example of where I think I fall, which is definitely having a niche but not being totally confined to it. However, truth testing probably isn't a real arg. I'll give it to you just understand that I err very heavily to comparative worlds.


 * MAKE SURE YOU MEET YOUR OWN FRAMEWORK.** Seems like a given, but you'd be surprised.

People think saying "Role of the Ballot" automatically precludes ethical framing. I do not know why. Please do weighing.

If you're a policy style debater I recommend reading my policy paradigm as well.

//**For CX**//
Tell me what to weigh and how to weigh it. I default to (vaguely) multiplying probability by magnitude, and dividing it by timeframe, but unless your I/L scenario is fire af and your inherency brink args are on point, it's gonna be a hard sell on your vague extinction impacts. As an LDer, framing is a pretty big deal for me, and I'll happily vote on structural violence impacts over big-stick stuff if you tell me to do so and why.

I love impact filter args. I will vote on these in a heartbeat if you understand and execute them well and if you pull off a win with it I'll probably just like auto W-30 you.

I'll vote on ontology/epistemology first, but don't just expect me to give that to you just because you read the Dillon evidence. On debating which impacts come first the LBL is a big deal for me, do good comparative weighing. As a general rule though I err towards the aff getting to weigh the aff, although I have voted otherwise in the past.

__DAs__
I'm gonna know whatever kind of DA you run, I've gone for most of them.

UQ controls the direction of the link, or whatever the fuck people say. I'm much more persuaded by a good brink arg than just "X is high, plan decreases X, lack of X is bad." Likewise, if the aff makes a UQ overwhelms the link arg and it does I will be happy with the aff and your speaks will show my happiness. Have good and specific links and recent uniqueness, the more so the better, but just because your ev is more recent doesn't mean it's better.

Comparative analysis on evidence is good. If your non-UQ evidence takes into account the link, tell me that. If your link card is fire af and their link turn doesn't respond to the warrants, tell me that. This goes for everything you read, not just DAs.

Bad evidence is bad, I'll weigh good analysis over trash cards any day of the week. If you don't have any defense on the DA they run, just go up and do good analysis as to why the DA is wrong. I'll weigh it fairly.

If you're going for politics, everything I just said is magnified by a power of 7. I normally cut politics updates/UQ the morning of a tournament, and I cut them again after round 2 or so. Thumpers are very convincing to me, but only if you explain why they thump. If you don't know what thumpers are, maybe don't go for politics.

__CPs__
Please. A good CP/DA combo is probably low-key the best thing a debater can run.

You //have// to win net benefit, I consider a net benefit to be externally created exclusivity, so intrinsic mutual exclusivity isn't a problem. I'll count solvency turns or a DA as sufficient. Your CP should probably solve for at least part of the aff.

A PERM IS NOT OFFENSE. It's just a test of MEx. I view the CP as an opportunity cost DA, i.e: "If we do the plan we can't do this better thing." A perm is just you no-linking the DA. This is why you don't need to win MEx for me, because if there's no good reason to do both then I vote neg.

If you run a CP presumption might flip - Mason Marriot Voss has a cool thing on this that I like:

"Presumption flips affirmative when the counterplan is more change from the status quo than the aff
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; border: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11.8496px; font-size: 12.88px; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 20px; line-height: inherit; line-height: inherit; list-style: square; list-style: square; margin-left: 32px; margin-left: 32px; margin-top: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px; padding-left: 12px; padding-left: 12px; padding: 0px 0px 8px; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;">For example: Plan: USfg should feed Africa and go to the moon, CP: USfg should feed Africa, Presumption stays negative.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; border: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11.8496px; font-size: 12.88px; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 20px; line-height: inherit; line-height: inherit; list-style: square; list-style: square; margin-left: 32px; margin-left: 32px; margin-top: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px; padding-left: 12px; padding-left: 12px; padding: 0px 0px 8px; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;">Example two: Plan: USfg should invest in renewables, CP: USfg should sign the Law of the Sea, iron fertilize the ocean, build CCS, and instate a carbon tax, Presumption flips aff.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; border: 0px; border: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11.8496px; font-size: 12.88px; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 20px; line-height: inherit; line-height: inherit; list-style: square; list-style: square; margin-left: 32px; margin-left: 32px; margin-top: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px; padding-left: 12px; padding-left: 12px; padding: 0px 0px 8px; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;">Obviously there are instances where this is not a perfect standard which is why I think it is up to the debaters to explain which way presumption flips and why. This doesn’t come up a ton but when it does it matters."

PICs are cool, but not word PICs. Textual competition doesn't exist. I'll vote on em but I won't like it and neither will your speaks.

Consult, process, delay, and agent CPs are cool but may be illegitimate.

__Ks__
Yee. I probably go for K at least 1/3 of my rounds. I'm very familiar with everything that isn't super high theory pomo stuff, and I can probably get that too if you explain it, I'm well read in Derrida and that has endowed me with the ability to understand most pomo stuff kinda well. I'll flow anything, but some stuff I will not weigh (see below). I'm particularly familiar with Cap, Debility theory (please don't call me a "crip"), Anti-Blackness, Hauntology, Foucault/Agamben/Biopower, Nietzsche, and Heidegger. And a few other things, but mostly those.

I default to weighing aff against the K. I can be persuaded otherwise, but you need a good concrete reason aff doesn't get the aff.

Have good links. I'll flow generic-ass state action/reformism links, but you're gonna have some work to do to persuade me. If the links are super generic the perm debate is probably gonna be really good for the aff.

Micropolitics is cool. Performance is also cool. Revolution and refusing the political is pretty cool. Genealogical analysis and critical interrogation is very cool. Purely discourse based solvency mechs are not cool. HAVE A REAL SOLVENCY MECHANISM TO THE ALT. I don't care what it is, just have it. Micropolitics stuff, refusal, analysis, critique, severing reps, whatever. And for fucks sake explain it, if your tag is just "Prefer a methodology of rhizomatic subversion whereby we semiotically recapture the face of the spectral self and the other in an act of resisting static being and becmoing-as-minoritarian" that's probably not an argument to me, and my RFD is probably gonna read "on the k: WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT MEAN"


 * If you want to beat a K in front of me I** **recommend:**

Cede the Political. I go for it every single Policy v K round I have. I think it's incredibly convincing, it'll supercharge the perm solvency debate, and it'll go a long way towards leveraging your aff against the K. Zanotti and Boggs are true args.

//Specific// Perms. Don't just read some generic ass "reformism generally good" stuff. If they read cap, read cap-specific perm cards back and I'll err heavily in your favor. Read cap-specific perm cards //specific to your aff// and I'll probably ask you to marry me on the spot. I know above I said CtP is great for perms, but only if the perm itself is substantive. **However, just because you win the methods don't compete doesn't mean you shield the** **links.** So reformism is good to solve cap! Great! Now why the hell is this aff actually a reform? **If you can't win an effective link turn with your aff I seriously doubt your ability to win the perm in front of me.**

Impact Turns. Pretty self explanatory, the only times I'd recommend not going for it is when it's morally abhorrent, i.e: ableism/racism/sexism good. That being said, I'm probably the most hardcore util=trutil judge you'll ever have. MAKE YOUR TURNS SPECIFIC to their impacts. "Cap good for poverty" isn't super convincing in front of eco-socialism, "cap good for environment" is.

Solvency Turns. "Your revolution terminally fails." 'Nuff said. As with CtP, this is a great way to win a K with me, I recommend it probably more than generic-ass impact turns.


 * I do not recommend:**

"Ks are unfair, this is a policy-based forum, I have no way of prepping for this, etc" shut the hell up, quit whining, its nobody's fault but your own for your lack of prep. I'm a dirt-poor debater from an underfunded program with very little free time and I have never once had issues with "unpredictable Ks" making it impossible for me to prep. You didn't put in the work, that's on you. **HOWEVER**, limits and game design are totally real args. NOTE - against K affs though I will totally flow FW.


 * IF YOU PLAN TO READ A K AFF IN FRONT OF ME** that is a-okay, I have run many a K aff in my day but I expect you to be directionally topical, i.e: you have something to do with the rez whether it's a genealogical examination of power through it, a critique of it's underlying assumptions, whatever. I would much rather hear a very in-depth K aff based on topic-specific lit as opposed to the same University aff that seems to pop up on every fucking topic somewhere, but I'll flow what you give me. That being said, the less topical your K aff is, the more I will be persuaded by neg FW args - more on this below.

__** Things I do not care about in K debates **__

I'll be adding to this list as I discover new args that are dumb and I don't care about.


 * Author ad hominem attacks are not a thing that I care about.** Sure, Schmitt was a Nazi. So what. Beethoven was pretty racist, we still regard his works as incredible. **Because the works and the creator are separate entities.** Same thing with authors. Schmitt's writings on enmity were smart and kinda true, even if he was a Nazi. I'm only putting this because I often go for Ks that are regarded as taboo and I see this happen a lot. **However, if you argue that Schmitt justifies Nazism, now I care.**

__T/Theory/FW__
Please do it **if it's warranted.** I am all about the T-FW debate, I love a good meta-debate round.

I default to drop the arg on theory, drop the debater on topicality, competing interps on theory and reasonability on T, and no RVIs for either. I can be swayed without too much effort on all of those EXCEPT T not being an RVI, cause it probably isn't. Cool and specific weighin and contextualization are gonna have more sway with me than "aaaaaahhhhh I like politix and dont have a link for u grrrr"

The LBL is EXTREMELY important to me for T debates, but good overviews and underviews are underutilized, I find. I err towards the debater having Theory run on them, and I err neg on topicality. FW is anyone's game.


 * READMEREADMEREADMEREADME** Now that I have your attention, in theory debates I **expect your shell and abuse weighing to be contextual to the actual in-round abuse.** I find too often I end up judging shitty theory debates whether it's between friends, my teammates or at locals, because people think just because the aff/neg said "competing interps" that means you basically auto-link into their offense. If you wanna go for PICs bad that's fine but a process CP is prob gonna be abusive in different ways than an agent CP, and different process CPs are gonna be just as varied in their abuse. **The best thing** you can do in a frivolous theory debate with me judging is **put defense on the violation.** Allow me to explain - neg reads brackets theory or some dumb shell right? 1AR, if instead of playing the shitty theory game you say "I literally had one bracket on one word in one card and it's for the sole purpose of adding an 's' to make the noun plural" you will probably win the shell in front of me because **even if their interp is on-balance true, I don't believe that there is a sufficient link to the offense for me to pull the trigger.**

__**FW**__
You don't have to run a plan text with me, but I'm not gonna vote you up just because you're cool and edgy with your k aff, //especially// not if you just read generic ass "FW is a link to the K" args. For both sides, I expect good LBL, going down the flow and explaining what outweighs and why. Contextualize your analysis. I don't think fairness is nothing more than an internal link to education, but I also think that a fair game design is key to the game working and that it's also for sure a constraint on my evaluation, so I'll vote happily on fairness impacts provided you weigh it against education properly. Education impacts, portable skills impacts, accessibility impacts, and critical impacts I'll vote on just the same, provided I have a good reason as to why I'm voting on it. Cede the Political combined with a portable skills/policy education impact is probably the single best 2NR you can read in front of me, I've given countless 2NRs on it and it's won me many a round. Procedural fairness is also great tho, and I've done the same with that. I'm cool with K's of T, but the more specific the better.

**__Topicality__**
I err neg heavily. I default to topicality being a voter and not an RVI. I **maybe ca**n be convinced that it's an RVI but it's the biggest uphill battle of your life. FX topicality isn't //too// huge of a deal unless there seriously is like zero ground left for you. Extra-topicality is the same. Being both FX and Extra topical, however, is a very big deal. I like specific standards. Legal context is one I go for a lot these days. I am much more swayed by a good counter-interp or an I meet than I am by reasonability, but I'll do that too. My brightline for reasonability as gut checking is is "if you can still have clash/run core topic generics, you're reasonable" Do comparative analysis as to why your standards outweigh. CX checks abuse is not a real arg. Lit checks abuse is a slightly more real arg. Clash checks abuse is a very real arg, it's called reasonability.


 * __Theory__ **

Eh. It's whatevs. If there's a real abuse story there, go for it. If it's frivolous, don't please. Never been a huge theory debater. I default to no RVIs, competing interps, no CX checks on interps, and 1AR gets theory/metatheory. I can be persuaded for whatever tho.

__Specific args__
My condo interp is that the neg gets at most one CP and one K. Condo is probably good but I can be persuaded otherwise.

Spec shells are generally stupid unless there is serious real ground loss from O-Speccing or not speccing an implementation mech.

RVIs are whatever on theory. I'm much more likely to give them to the aff than the neg though, but probably never on T.

I tend to be in the middle on disclosure. I can definitely agree it's good for the round and for education, but I also don't think it's necessarily //abusive// not to. Coming from a small school with not a ton of manpower, I totally understand how the wiki can make life hell for smaller schools, since any big school can prep them the fuck out but they can't do the same. I'll vote on it but not hack for it and I won't like you if you just use it to bully.

If you plan on running flashing, font size, bracket theory, or the like, you're an ass and your speaks will show it.

**__Case__**
I like the way Alex Estrada said it. "I expect case just as I expect the sun to rise." You have a whole speech of pure offense. Use it. If I don't hear case in the 2AR I will be sad and so will you. Don't make me sad.

Case turns are the best thing. Probably my favorite neg strat has always been 1 or 2 off and the rest of my time on pure case analysis and turns. Please go for case.

//**For LD**// you can have a truth/obligation-testing aff or a policy aff. It's all good with me, just tell me what I'm hearing. For NCs, go for whatever alternate framework you want.

__**Tricks**__
Please no. Tricks debaters are generally bad debaters. The only time that tricks debate requires real skill is when you are at the highest level of it, and I don't think any of you are Kinkaid TG (shout out to the most OG lab leader at UTNIF that wasn't Chase Hamilton).

NIBs are stupid and abusive. The whole ought-can-presumption chain thing is also stupid. "To affirm means to show the truth of, but nothing is true because solipsism" is not an argument.

"Ought means logical consequence" holds a special place in my heart, because it provides an opportunity for the LARPer to troll the trickster. The way I was taught to deal with this arg (shoutout to Tyler Haulette from UTNIF) is to just be like "lol we're gonna go extinct before the aff happens here's some uniqueness and impact ev and some inherency and impact ev so the res isn't inevitable we gonna die first." It's the funniest shit ever and if you do this strat against that aff and win you're getting a 30.

Theory spikes at the bottom of the aff are alright, I always read underviews, but don't be excessive.

Skep is dickish but also low-key funny as fuck and it's kind of interesting as a one-off strat. I think it's totally an underrated thing to go for as a REAL NC strat. I'm probably not gonna vote you up on it but if you think you can debate the hell out of it please do, and I promise to evaluate your arguments in a vacuum. Skep triggers, however, are probably not real args and probably warrant theory. https://speechdrop.net/