Kramer,+Alex

Last edit: 19 May 2014

//Background//

I was an assistant LD coach at Valley High School in West Des Moines, IA from Summer 2010 – Spring 2014. I also taught at the NSD 2012, NDF Boston 2011, and NDF Boston 2010 summer camps. I'm currently a graduate student at Kansas State University, and likely haven't been too involved in the debate community by the point you're reading this. The last debate tournament I judged at was TOC in April 2014. This paradigm is for LD; if I'm judging a policy round, ask me specifics before rounds. If you have questions, you can contact me at kramer[dot]alex[dot]kramer[at]gmail[dot]com.

//General paradigm//

I will evaluate almost anything you say in round, so long as it is somehow tied into the ballot and is in comprehensible English. In that respect, I am a very open judge. I am also an interventionist judge in that the mere fact that words may come out of your mouth does not imply any obligation on my part to evaluate what you say in the manner in which you wish it to be evaluated. It is your job to explain how arguments function in a convincing manner. In general, I prefer listening to unique, well-developed, and nuanced substantive debates with large amounts of clash.

Speed is fine, but be clear and signpost, especially on analytic and / or dense argumentation. When in doubt, always read slower, and keep in mind that I may not have judged a highly technical debate in a while. I will say both “slow” and / or “clear” if I can't understand what you're saying. I have a decent background in philosophy, but if I can't understand an argument, I won't vote on it. This is especially true of critical arguments; I've read a fair amount of the lit but am by no means an expert; please both (a) slow down and (b) explain in your own words (without excessive jargon) what your arguments actually say.

With respect to theory, I'm not a fan of most theory debates, and I think that allowing theory as a strategic tool instead of a check on clear abuse sets problematic norms for debate. You should probably only run theory in front of me when you really think there's been a non-trivial amount of unfairness, loss of education, or some other skew in the round. Otherwise, you're probably not going to get me to vote on the argument and you'll probably get lower speaks.

//Other potentially relevant information//

Please don't any of the following:
 * Discriminatory, harassing, or threatening rhetoric or behavior
 * Illegitimate academic practices (plagiarism, blatantly miscutting evidence, etc.)
 * Make arguments related to out-of-round or extra-resolutional debate practices or states of affairs which claim a debater should win or lose because of a situation external to the given round, without making a specific in-round link. Examples of members of this class of arguments include disclosure theory and positions that critique debate communities for being sexist, racist, etc. without an in-round link to privileged discourse. It's not that I don't sympathize with the content of these positions – issues of race, gender, sexuality, class, etc. in debate are certainly worth discussing (and I will gladly discuss these topics outside of rounds) – I just think they need an in-round or topical link.