Grishaber,+Regan

Regan Grishaber Northwestern University ‘16 Conflicts: Aliso Niguel, Millburn Last updated: August 1, 2013


 * Background ** : I debated LD at Aliso Niguel High School in Aliso Viejo, CA for 2 years, and I graduated in 2012. I earned 6 bids my senior year and ended my career in semis of ToC.


 * Paradigm ** : If no arguments are made either way, I will adopt whatever paradigm seems to be assumed by both debaters. If it is unclear what paradigm debaters are operating under, I default to comparing worlds. I will do my best to not intervene and to evaluate all arguments as objectively as possible. However, objectivity does not require me to be a flow-bot. I will evaluate the debate from a logical perspective, meaning blippy or poorly warranted arguments will not get you far in front of me. This doesn't mean that I will discard short or underdeveloped arguments on face, but it does mean that you are much better off developing your arguments and clashing with your opponent’s arguments.


 * Speed/Presentation ** : Speed is fine so long as you are clear. I will yell clear a couple times, but if it gets excessive and/or you are not changing anything, I will stop flowing. Don’t start your speech going 100 percent—give me a chance to get used to your spreading voice. Slow down for tags, author names, analytics, confusing/complex arguments, and theory. I don’t care if you sit or stand.


 * Extensions ** : Extensions should generally contain a claim, warrant, and impact. Conceded arguments require less developed extensions, but if the argument has important implications for the round, it’s to your benefit to make sure the warrant and implications are clear. You don’t need to say the word “extend.” Referencing your offense is sufficient. I give the aff leeway on extensions.


 * Framework ** : All arguments need some sort of framework, i.e. a reason why your impacts matter. The traditional value-criterion structure is nice but by no means necessary—I’m open to less conventional frameworks as long as they are well justified. I’m fine with any philosophy, but if you are reading something dense please slow down and be sure to explain your arguments clearly.


 * Critical Positions ** : I’m fine with Ks and other critical positions but I am not familiar with the literature so if you’re going to run more critical arguments you really need to slow down and explain your arguments a lot. Critical arguments still require some sort of framework/role of the ballot section that explains why your impacts are relevant. Most Ks require an alternative, otherwise they’re just non-unique disads.


 * Theory/Topicality ** : You’re free to run whatever theory you want. I think theory can serve as a check on abuse as well as a valuable strategic tool. Theory should be read in the 4-part format (interpretation, violation, standards, and voter). My default is that theory is a matter of competing interpretations, a reason to reject the debater, and that fairness is more important than education. I am fine with theory arguments that focus on potential abuse, but I think actual abuse is much more persuasive and I can definitely be convinced that potential abuse is not a voter. I can be persuaded by offensive counter-interpretations, but I think they generally do not make sense since the offensive part of the counter-interp would appeal to the justifications for an RVI anyway. That said, I am also totally fine with RVIs and am actually very persuaded by them. Finally, I think competing interpretations requires the person answering theory to have an explicit counter-interpretation, unless they don’t violate the initial interpretation. All of these views are merely defaults and if arguments are won for opposing views I will accept them without hesitation. The one exception is that you will have a tough time convincing me that fairness is not at least a reason to reject the argument, so you are probably better off responding to theory instead of reading your 10 reasons that fairness is not a voter.


 * CX ** : CX is binding. Don’t be unnecessarily rude or ignorant. Don’t be sketchy or try to avoid actually debating. You can continue asking questions during prep.


 * Presumption ** : I think there is almost always a risk of offense, but I understand situations where the round can come down to presumption. If no arguments are made either way, I presume aff by default.


 * Speaks ** : I think I will average around 27, with 28.5 and above meaning I think you deserve to clear. I will give higher speaks for well-executed strategies, interesting/nuanced positions, confidence, humor, and clarity. If you read policy arguments with especially good evidence I will probably boost your speaks. Getting a 30 from me isn’t impossible.

Beyond that, feel free to ask me before the round if you have any questions, or you can e-mail me at regangrishaber@gmail.com.