Chavez,+Jonathan

Jonathan Chavez: I'm an assistant coach in LD with Lexington ** LD Debate Paradigm **

 I tab a lot of tournaments. Before you do waste a strike on me, be sure I'm not tabbing and won't judge anyway.

Details of in round behavior: As long as you show me and your opponent respect, I’m not a stickler for anything (sitting, standing, in round behavior, flowing, etc.). I am okay with speed except in extreme cases. I will yell clear. The first two times that I yell clear, there are no repercussions. If I have to yell clear a third time, you will see the impacts in your speaker points, and can more than likely assume that there are things that you have said that are not on my flow.

**Fuller Paradigm:** 1. I am well versed in critical theory and continental philosophy, but my background comes at it from completely outside the world of LD Debate. My degree is in Social Studies from Harvard. I’ve confronted this stuff on a relatively rigorous level. I am sympathetic very to well found, novel approaches to use of critical theory, but am offended by bad and abusive uses for obfuscation. Run it at your own risk in front of me. The same thing goes for most other types of theoretical frameworks you can run in front of me. That being said, because of my understanding of most of these fields, and because I try not to bring outside perspective into rounds, I am more likely than most judges to call for the foundational cards in your case to verify that the claims that you are making from them explicitly come from the card as presented. Simply saying Habermas will not grant you access to his entire system of ethics - only those explicitly called out in the cards you read. This may mean I take a narrow interpretation of the links you are allowed to take out of these cards, but it is the fairest way I know of evaluating given my outside background. 2. Given where circuit LD has gone of late, I do not believe it is actually possible for judges to come into rounds //tabula rasa// at this point, but I will try. I am willing to judge and evaluate skeptical arguments, but from a practical standpoint, I find that most of them that I see in round to be poorly run and that they tend to place a high burden on judges for evaluation of the round and just beg for intervention. As such, I am willing to grant a little leeway to responses to skep. If you feel as though the skep run in the round has simply muddied the waters and confused the flow to a point where there is an unfair burden of response, say that, because I am likely in the same boat as you are. Just like with critical arguments, however, novel, well thought out approaches to skep. will be highly rewarded. 3. For me to vote on theory, there must be an actual unfair burden or violation occurring in the round. I vote on theory often, but strongly feel that is is overused in rounds by debaters who have simply not put in the work to combat reasonable alternatives. Insofar as I give debaters significant leeway in in-round claims and responses, I give significant leeway to what I consider to be reasonable Aff. constructions. 4. RVIs are necessary to combat bad theory. My threshold for casting a ballot on RVIs is relatively low. In general, I've found myself to be fairly sympathetic to RVI arguments founded in performative ethics. Most other RVI's however I have found to be non-responsive and difficult to vote on when evaluating a round. Though I am sympathetic to RVIs, I tend to find going all-in on them to be bad strategy. 5. Tagging is critical. I am a highly visual learner and thinker. My flow is a two dimensional map. Tell me on the map where to put my pen or what cell to put something in, and I will do so. Don’t do that, and I’m likely to just write it down somewhere, and it will be a matter of luck on your end whether or not I put it in the right place.  6. I like offense and clash in rounds. Debaters that understand the full context of a round and are able to pinpoint the issues of importance and focus their time on that tend to do well on my ballots. 7. Impact and crystallize. Bottom line: if you give me a weighing mechanism, tell me why it’s the correct mechanism, tell me why you won given that mechanism, and then have a flow that supports that point of view, you will win. 8. I am sympathetic to empiric evidence. See my above point about weighing. I do a wide variety of quantitative analysis for a living, and can understand anything you’re going to throw at me on that front, so feel free to “go there.” 9. My first exposure to debate came from Policy, so am I intimately familiar with that logical style and the vocabulary of the event. 10. I tend to give speaks in the 27+ range, and will give 30s when they are earned. I will also punish you for boorish and rude behavior and arrogance. 11. My RFDs will be honest with you. The vast majority of rounds that I’ve seen have been far muddier and far more confusing than debaters in the round tend to think they are. You will know if I’m voting in a state of confusion. <span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;"> 12. I have A.D.D. Bad A.D.D. I will stay focused on the round as long as your argumentation and logic can be followed, but if you purposely try to confuse your opponent (and me), I am likely to begin tuning out, missing things, and my mind will start wandering. The onus is on you to present a clear, and logical case, because when things start getting confusing - and please note, this doesn't mean difficult, i really mean confusing as in logical points simply not having internal consistency - there is a snowball effect on my attention span, and I will lose progressively more arguments as things go on. <span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive; margin-bottom: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;">13. If I have been given no other way for weighing the merits of two arguments against each other - and please note, this happens far more often than most debaters believe it does - I default to Occam's Razor. I am a statistician - "proof" and "reasonable" have explicit meanings in the world that I come from, and absent being given a reason to deviate from that, I won't. <span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive; margin-bottom: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;">14. I have a far higher threshold than many judges for what I am willing to grant as a turn. A response is not a turn, and you calling it such will not auto-grant you access to offense that comes off that turn. You must explain how your turn links into a standards debate and how your interpretation grants you access to any offense. <span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;">15. In round, I have a tendency to be fairly demonstrative with facial expressions, often unconsciously. If I'm confused, you will know it. If I am understanding you and logically am following you, you will know it. I flow on a computer and will often look at you and not my screen during rounds. It behooves you to actually look at me during rounds and adjust to non-verbal feedback (again, mostly unconscious). <span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;">16. This is primarily an educational event and not simply a competitive event. My role as an educator comes before my role as an adjudicator. <span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;">17. In giving RFD's a few things I should note. First, I tend to begin them with a 30 second to 1 minute or so overview of the round (sometimes a bit longer) before disclosing the decision. This is not to antagonize you, but I know how most debaters minds work - once I tell you W/L, the winner tends to shut off, but more often than not, there are still things that the victor should learn coming out of the round. I want to point those things out first. In the context of the RFDs, I will also often discuss things that did not occur in the round or that I think should have occurred in the round, but do not confuse this with why I voted the way I did. It's a chance to educationally benefit you. <span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;">18. If there is no offense at the end of the round, I am not presuming unless I have been given an uncontested reason why I must presume one side or the other. If this happens in a round, I will decide speaker points, sign my ballot and tell both debaters that there is no offense and flip a coin to decide the round and give my RFD as such. I will evaluate competing presumption claims, but please don't get bogged down in it because I don't enjoy it. <span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;">19. I will vote on micro-politics, but I need coherent impacts articulated for me to pull such a trigger. Coherent impacts usually, though not always, include numbers. <span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;">20. The only framework bias that I have that I am aware of is a dislike of communitarianism. Michael Sandel is a charlatan. If it is uncontested, I will vote on it, but the burden to knock a communitarian argument off my flow is very low. <span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;">21. I'm a grown adult with a fulfilling career outside the world of LD Debate. I don't follow the machinations and political controversies going on within the activity closely at all.