Neal,+Travis

Judging Philosophies are nearly worthless, so I will try to provide data of how I am and less of my musings about how I wish to be.

Except for the Michigan camp I am not very involved with the national high school circuit anymore. I am still active on the collegiate level and locally in Minnesota high school debate.

My threshold for what is an argument is low. For example, “winners win” is an argument, but it behooves you to say more than “winners win.” If the two words are the extent of the argument, then it is not a good argument and will not withstand much scrutiny. There is also a (significant?) risk that it operates differently for me than it does for you. The following has been an issue: my burden for a 1AR extension is very low unless the 2NR makes an issue of this. Just because the 1AR doesn’t provide the terminal impact to an argument doesn’t mean the 2AR doesn’t get to impact it. The 2NR needs to intervene, and intervene well, in this issue, because the 2AR is obviously going to impact it.

I do believe we, as a community, prematurely moved on from the question about the need for alternatives. If the affirmative engages in something bad or evil, then that seems to be a reasonable reason to not do it.

The only debate that is ideologically foreclosed is Topicality Is a Voter. I will put my pen down.

The data:

It has been years since I have been yelled at for a decision. Either I am on my game or beyond accountability. I know which interpretation I prefer.

It is very rare for me vote on a framework argument. Due to ideological preclusion (doubtful) or fatigue (likely) or whatever, just know the data does not support going for these arguments in front of me.

It is a very rare ballot that I cast on a theory argument. I might be ideologically foreclosed (I want to say I am willing, but it’s been a long time since I voted on it) on Conditionality Is Good. I have, however, voted that multiple conditional advocacies are bad.

I am willing to vote on Topicality, but given how rare it is I suspect my needs are a little more stringent than many in the community.

My general problem with theory and procedurals is that debate should be hard. To earn my ballot I need debate to be rendered unproductive, not just hard. Competing interpretations only partially obviates this standard.

As always I am willing to answer questions and discuss this stuff. Without prompting though I think I have been more than forthcoming.