Battey,+Peter

Pete Battey East Kentwood High School, Kentwood MI Updated 25OCT10

Short version: line by line is important, fiat is real, be nice to each other.

Long version:

I am a technical, line-by-line judge. Most of my ballots are won because of line-by-line drops that are extended, explained, and implicated. Long overviews are great for my general understanding but I won’t do the work of applying the arguments for you. Cross applications need to be made and be specific. I will resolve the round with the least amount of intervention possible. That often means voting for arguments that aren’t the greatest but were conceded by the other team.

I consider fiat to be real. I will always evaluate the consequences of plan action and vote for which course of action is most advantageous. Affs must read a plan text. I will do my best to evaluate every type of argument but I am not very familiar with many kritik authors. It is worth your time to explain your arguments to me.

Specific links are key, especially for kritiks. I am less likely to be persuaded by links of omission or to the other teams assumptions than I am by links to what they actually do. Impact analysis is great but you need to access the impact first – consider it a tie-breaker and not necessarily a game winner.

I will reject policy options that are proven to be theoretically illegitimate. That stated, I have a reasonably high threshold for voting neg on topicality. Demonstrating actual, in round abuse will go a long way towards convincing me to vote on T or theory. You need a sourced definition for your T violation.

Clarity is a good thing. I will do my best to flow every intelligible argument. I will let you know if I am unable to do so. Highly technical, theoretical arguments should be slower and clearer than ordinary evidence. Also, complicated philosophical evidence should be slow enough that I can understand it.

I am probably more likely than other judges to assign zero risk to an argument. The offense / defense distinction is useful but a good defensive argument goes a lot further towards winning me over than a bad offensive one. Simply making an argument does not guarantee a non-zero risk that it’s true.

I am probably less likely than other judges to read evidence after the round. I feel it's your job to tell me why your evidence is awesome. Under most circumstances, I will only call for evidence if the content is in dispute. I am unlikely to call for evidence from both teams and decide which is better.

Please be kind and courteous to each other. Don’t shout at each other, be rude, or be disrespectful. Sit down and flow. Speak one at a time in cross-x. If you must get cards while someone else is speaking, designate a place to put them and don’t interfere with the speaker. Don’t clip cards or take them out of context. Don’t accuse another team of either of these without proof.

Please ask me any questions you might have before the debate starts – I’ll be more than happy to explain in further detail.

Good luck and have fun!