Fischer,+Eric

I debated at Byram Hills in New York from 2006-2009. I was an above-average national circuit debater, breaking at a handful of bid tournaments my senior year. Since then, I've graduated from Wash U. in St. Louis and am now a 2L at Georgetown Law.

I am a human being and while I try to be as "tabula rasa" as possible, there is no such thing as a "tabula rasa" judge. Extreme example that pops into my head: If you try to convince me the Holocaust was a good thing, I'll listen and may even begrudgingly vote for it if you win the issue. That being said, I can't imagine it would be that hard for your opponent to convince me that the loss of millions of innocent lives was a bad thing or defeat the "edgy" skepticism framework you're running that argument with. Less extreme example: If you and your opponent are both trying to convince me that your framework precludes theirs and you don't do a good job of resolving the debate, I will pick the argument that makes more sense to me, since I need to decide the round somehow.

Speed: I was a fairly speedy debater and can handle a reasonable amount of speed. Please note that I do not judge all that often, though, so I'm definitely not the best speed judge out there. If I had to rate myself, I'd say I'm currently an 8 out of 10. You will be able to tell if you're going too fast by the confused look on my face. Also, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE slow down when you read card names and don't speed through heavy philosophy! I've read many popular debate authors including Nietzsche, Foucault, and Zizek and I have no problem admitting that their work often confuses me on the first read through. It's unreasonable for you to expect me to both catch and understand heavy philosophy when you're reading it at hundreds of words per minute.

Heavy Philosophy: I like it a lot (I was a bit of a K debater back in the day) but once again, I need to understand what you are saying. Save for maybe Walter Kaufmann's work, translations of Nietzsche and other philosophers often suck to begin with. You need to go at a moderate pace and explain yourself if you want to win my ballot with this type of stuff.

Theory: I will listen to your theory and enjoy a good theory debate. You will be penalized, however, if you run crappy, blippy theory. Theory is just another argument on the flow and thus I expect it to be given the time/thought that you'd give to any other argument. Yes, I know what ground skew is, but you need to actually explain why your opponent is limiting the amount of ground you have access to. Shrieking "GROUND SKEW" at a really quick speed is only going to make me mad at you. Also, I highly prefer reject the argument theory over drop the debater theory, but I'll listen to whatever you say. Back in the day, I considered myself a competing interps guy over reasonability, but I honestly can't say which I prefer these days.

Framework: I do not default to a standard. If you and your opponent are both running standards... great! If one of you is and one you isn't, there needs to be some explanation as to why I should/should not look to the standard as a means to evaluate the round. If neither of you are running standards, it should be clear to me what I'm going to vote based off of. Nothing makes me madder than to sit through an entire debate without being told how I should evaluate the round. **Framework is the most important part of the round. I'd rather see a big framework debate that really clarifies what I'm voting off of than a bunch of arguments linking to nothing. I DO NOT CARE HOW MANY ARGUMENTS YOU WON IF THEY DON'T LINK TO THE WINNING FRAMEWORK.** Pro-tip: the best debaters are the ones who are able to win both standards, so no matter what I end up looking to in the round, I'm going to vote for them. Do that.

Calling Cards: I only call cards when I want to check wording of a card, usually because what you say your card says and what your opponent says your card says are two different things. I will never call a card because I didn't understand it/wasn't able to flow it.

Warrants: If an argument isn't sufficiently warranted, it doesn't exist on my flow, even if your opponent completely dropped it. I think being in law school has raised my threshold for what counts as a warrant – I find that debaters frequently substitute cards for warrants, and that really frustrates me. If things aren't warranted, my face will start looking like this:



Miscellaneous: It's really helpful if you're making a number of arguments against a point on the flow to numerically label them. Obviously not essential, but help me help you.

Speaker points: These are things I take into account, in no particular order.
 * **Clarity**
 * **Strategic decision-making**
 * **Speed** – If you speak really quickly and don't say much (i.e. I look down at the flow at the end of your speech and find that there's a significant disparity between the speed at which you spoke and the number/quality of arguments you were able to make), I will be annoyed and might take it out on your speaks.
 * **Creating** (and not avoiding) **clash**. Yes, if your opponent dropped some key arguments, feel free to extend them – it will win you the round. But identifying and resolving the central question of the round? That will win you my heart.
 * **Intervention** – Whether (and if so, how much) I feel like my decision requires intervention
 * **Volume** – I don't like being yelled at
 * **Politeness**