Lenart+III,+Joseph

Judge Philosophy --- Joseph Lenart III --- Updated 26 September 2013 The Barstow School 2007-2013 Georgetown University 2013-

Background: Hello. My name is Joseph Lenart III. I debated at The Barstow School in Kansas City, Missouri for six years. I have not judged extensively during my time in high school or college, but I enjoy thinking about debate and shall put as much effort into my decision-making process knowing the love and work debaters have and put into the activity. I currently debate at Georgetown University.

The Important:
 * I don’t know how much I will be judging for the 2013-2014 school year. As of September 26, 2013, I plan to judge infrequently and currently have a very limited knowledge about the topic. I did work at the Georgetown Debate Seminar this summer, but this clearly gives me little insight into how the topic has progressed since mid-July. Please explain any acronyms that you will constantly use in the debate or that frequently appear in your evidence for my sake.
 * I respect hard-working debaters and typically give them better points. A case-specific strategy coupled with a good understanding of the arguments presented evidenced by intelligent cross-examinations is the best way to my ballot and good speaker points.
 * Presumption is with less change, not necessarily always with the negative.
 * Technical precision > truth-based nature of your arguments. Having both doesn’t hurt.
 * Speed is great, but clarity is most important. Slowing down and having me comprehend your arguments is better than me writing down nothing from going fast. I will yell “clear” a few times if I can’t understand you and then will put down my pen.
 * Assuming all positions are well-prepared and executed as close to perfect as possible, I would rank my favorite 2NRs in this order: Politics and case, process counterplan and politics, generic topic critique, impact turning all advantages, entirely plan-inclusive counterplan with internal net-benefit, topic topicality argument.
 * An “argument” consists of a claim and a warrant. Extending warrants is crucial; otherwise, I will likely strike your argument from the flow. Example: If you keep repeating “conditionality is a voting issue – vote aff” alone without a reason why conditionality is bad, the extension of conditionality means nothing to me. This applies to cheap shots, as well.
 * Link determines direction of uniqueness.
 * I read evidence through the spin the debaters give me in the debate.
 * Offense/defense makes sense to me. Offense helps significantly, but defense can reduce an argument to a point at which it becomes meaningless.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Racist/sexist/homophobic language or an ethics violation will receive the lowest speaker points possible at the tournament and a loss. If you are attempting to prove an ethics violation (clipping, etc.), please provide me evidence to make sure my decision is crystal clear.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">I am not the best at flowing. Clearly identifying which arguments you are answering and answering them straight down the flow is the best way to ensure that my flow doesn’t get messed up, and I miss something crucial. This does not preclude embedded clash but forces you to perhaps do it better in front of me than most other judges.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Quick clarification note for paperless debate: I stop prep when the flash drive leaves the computer or, if both teams agree to use an email chain for the debate, when the speech is ready to be sent to all debaters and me. Unforeseen tech issues require no prep; I know how you feel.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Specific Argument Preferences:

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Topicality—It’s a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. Competing interpretations makes sense to me; reasonability is typically arbitrary. These debates become more interesting if you explain your internal links to your impacts and do impact comparison relative to the interpretation of the other team. Reasonability only makes sense when coupled with an extended counter-interpretation by the aff. I will vote on “bad” topicality arguments against arguably topical affs if the negative wins the debate or the affirmative mishandles the position.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Counterplans—I enjoy many types of counterplan debates. Counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive. Well-researched and specific agent counterplan debates are more enjoyable for me than most.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Disads—Link determines relative risk of offense—please see Calum Matheson’s judging philosophy for a well-explained version of this concept. Comparative impact calculus is essential in these debates to determine which impact o/w the other to prevent me from making an arbitrary decision one way or the other. Turns the case arguments are useful and typically damning if dropped by the affirmative. I love politics debates and am very unlikely to vote on politics theory arguments.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Critiques—A good critique debate is interesting to watch, while a bad critique debate makes me sad. Please do specific link and impact analysis with regard to the affirmative. Turns the case/alt solves the case arguments are crucial. I will note that this debate is not my forte. I have mainly dabbled in IR-related criticisms and capitalism; anything besides those will require substantial explanation of key terms for me to come to grips with the argument.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Performance/Critical Affirmatives—By default, I think that the affirmative should defend a topical plan of United States federal government action, but I can be persuaded otherwise. However, you will be facing an uphill battle on T if you do not defend a plan text.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Theory—I think you should have an interpretation, but it depends on the situation. Here is a list of my default settings for counterplan theory: <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Conditionality – one or two conditional positions are fine – anything more is bad – contradictions make me more willing to vote on conditionality bad. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Dispositionality – Perhaps the biggest position up for debate. I can come down on either side on this one. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Object fiat – bad. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">International fiat – good. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Consult – bad. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Agent CPs – good. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">PICs – good if it’s out of a specific phrase in the plan, bad if it’s from an individual word in the plan (the "Persons" PIC from the 09-10 Poverty topic comes to mind)/1AC in general.