Locher,+Karl


 * __Background:__**

I debated Varsity Switch for Stevens Point Area Senior High (Stevens Point, WI) for two years in High School and judged some varsity practice rounds immediately after High School. I resumed judging at the 2008 New Trier tournament and have done a few dozen rounds since then.

I hold B.A. degrees in Philosophy, Economics, and Scandinavian Studies and currently live in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Tabula Rasa
 * __Abstract:__**

__**Philosophy (full version):**__ The point of //High School ** policy **// debate is to the critical thinking skills of the participants. Open policy debate or dialectical discourse in other contexts may have different ends and uses, but the game that is policy debate should generally have the ends of being educational and intellectually stimulating. This isn't to say that I only vote on "education," but rather that I am looking for a well structured argument from the debaters. The more coherent, strategic, and well-developed an argument is, the better.

I am a Tabula Rasa judge and will listen to what is put into round. I pay attention to the flow and I value good argumentation and quality of evidence more so than quantity of the aforementioned. If you establish the framework for the debate, I'll vote on whatever you present as being the most important topic in round. As I think the point of debate is to be educational and fun, I’m happiest to vote on arguments that have provided some in-round edification. However, debate is a game that adheres to a few explicit (and a few implicit) rules, and debaters must work within those rules (or argue their way out of them) before anything else. Realize that under a discursive frame work, you are asking me as a judge, to become personally involved in the debate (as opposed to my objectivity under other frameworks).

I will not accept entirely new arguments in the negative block or in the rebuttals. You don't need to spend 5 minutes explaining every abuse argument for this sort of glaring breach of protocol, just note that its an illegal argument and that it be ignored.

If a team refuses to share evidence or is unable to do so, I will not consider it. To that end, if evidence is on a computer and I or the opposing team requests to see the evidence and you are unable to provide it in a timely manner, I will disqualify it from round.

//Signposting:// Give a clear roadmap before your speech, stick to it, and be clear in all of your tags. I also appreciate it when debaters take the time to make clear and thoughtful analytic arguments.
 * __Specifics:__**

//Speed//: I understand that in order to develop an argument within the time constrictions of a round, some speed is needed. However, there is definitely anupper limit to what is intelligible. On a scale of one to ten, I probably am happy around seven or eight. It is important, to me at least, that tags and analytics are done at a very clear pace. The evidence itself may be spoken more quickly, but the argumentation must come across clearly. I will not hesitate to tell you to slow down if necessary.

//Topicality:// Perhaps the greatest form of argumentation in debate. A great space for the debate of the resolution and debate theory, in addition to philosophy of language.

//Counterplans:// Perfectly happy to hear it and vote on it.

//Stock I////ssues:// ibid

//Disadvantages:// ibid

//Theory:// ibid

//Presentation/Speaker Points:// I appreciate a well-organized and well-spoken debate, as such I will be paying attention for speaker points.

//Cross Examination:// Used for the purpose of clarifying arguments between teams, not for argumentation.

//Critiques/Kritiks:// Perfectly happy to hear them and vote on them. However, winning a critical debate is much more work than most debaters realize. Although many of the best debates that I have been in or have witnessed have been critical in nature, some of the worst have also been so. There is a lot of free space for debate with Critiques, however that means that the analytic and argumentative skills of the debaters are all the more exposed.

//Conduct:// I do appreciate civil behavior in round, but go ahead and have fun. I’m not going to be upset or drop you for that. However you are working against yourself if you are rude or abusive to the other team in the room.

If a team refuses to share evidence or is unable to do so, I will not consider it. To that end, if evidence is on a computer and I or the opposing team requests to see the evidence and you are unable to provide it in a timely manner, I will disqualify it from round.