Howard,+Jay


 * Background: ** I debated 2 years on the national circuit and got to several bid rounds.


 * Conflicts: ** Lakes High School (WA), Vashon Island High School(WA)

** Shamelessly stealing the paradigms of my good friends Charles Chy and Larry Liu because they influenced my beliefs on debate **
**Micropolitics**- I will not vote on micropolitical positions. Debate is fictional discourse—i.e. I do not believe that a debater is defending his real, actual beliefs. If a debater uses offensive discourse, a loss is neither appropriate nor sufficient as punishment. That debater's administration should be notified and punitive actions should be taken, but not by the judge—the role of the judge is to determine the truth or falsity of the resolution, within theoretical parameters.

**Presumption** - If the debate becomes irresolvable and there are no presumption arguments, I will either vote against the debater who made the debate irresolvable, or I will flip a coin. For instance, if the 2NR goes all in on a theory shell that doesn't link (or that he also links into), and the 2ar goes all in on a counter interpretation but does not read a RVI, I will probably flip a coin. Also, I don't believe terminal defense can exist at a contention level unless an argument is just false, there is always risk of impact to the standard. However, I do think some arguments can function as terminal defense at a framework level, for instance I consider arguments like Taurek or Bostrum terminal on util. This default will be thrown out if a presumption argument is made in any speech. For example, even if no presumption argument is extended into rebuttals, I will presume aff if a "presume aff" argument is made in the AC and neg does not contest it.


 * Speed: ** SLOW DOWN FOR TAGLINES/AUTHORS/SHORT ANALYTICS. Speed is ok. I will yell clear until you are clear but your speaks will suffer after the first time. I won't call for evidence that I wasn't able to flow after the round.

1. Be comparative, rather than conceptualizing the framework debate as two isolated layers of the flow (one on the aff, the other on the neg). There’s almost always embedded clash. 2. Framework debate has become increasingly difficult to execute and adjudicate because of debate over meta-ethics and epistemology. These arguments are often difficult to understand, so p lease slow down and explain why the reasons to prefer your framework are significant. 3. Narrow standards that rely on impacts to justify them cannot be used to exclude other consequentialist impacts. Saying that X is valuable does not warrant the claim that everything besides X is therefore irrelevant. This also applies to deontology debates. For instance, a common argument says that the standard is consistency with X because not doing X would violate the categorical imperative. If Y is also inconsistent with the categorical imperative, then Y is not logically excluded by your standard. The burden is on you, the debater, to explain why arguments are precluded by your framework.
 * Standards: **


 * Extensions: ** Arguments need to have a claim, ** warrant, ** and impact, and so do extensions. If you are just extending the claim and impact in your speeches, don't be surprised when I don't evaluate the argument at all. However, arguments that get dropped need less time investment when getting extended (but you still need to be extending a warrant). Additionally, if an argument shifts when you make the extension, I won't evaluate it so clearly label your arguments. This means that if there are like 4 unlabeled framework arguments in the AC, and you extend them in the 1AR as apriori reasons to affirm, I won't vote for them. Finally, I believe in embedded clash which means that I'll assume arguments on the same layers of the debate naturally interact. This means that I'm more likely to evaluate new 2nr/2ar cross applications than other judges and may even compare arguments myself when making my decision but I would prefer to have that done in round.


 * Evidence: ** I will call for evidence after the round. Any cards that become important I will look at to make sure that the cards are lined correctly which includes leaving out modifiers. I will not vote down a debater for having bad evidence, but I will completely disregard the claim linked to the evidence being made. Please have citations for everything you read. If your opponent requests to look at the evidence you are reading, you have to show him/her.


 * Weighing: ** If you don't weigh in a util debate I default to body count (Note: I will determine strength of link on my own if there isn't weighing done in round - and I do so from a highly skeptical position looking for disjuncture in your link story). I prefer quantitative impacts in that regard instead of vacuous ones like "war" or "cyclical violence".


 * Theory/Topicality ** – I default to reasonability. A minimalist view of competing interpretations, i.e. comparative offense on in-round abuse, drop the argument, is easily defensible, but any view of competing interpretations which assumes norm creation, RVI, and drop the debater will require significant warranting. I default to dropping the argument, and winning a drop the debater claim requires more than "drop the debater to deter future abuse." I view any norm creation and deterrence argument in the same way as a micropolitical position (you are asking for my ballot to promote positive change within the debate community). I believe the best argument in favor of dropping the debater is a claim about the magnitude of the in-round abuse--"I could not win this round if theory was not a reason to drop the debater."

Please do not run "meta-theory" or an "offensive-counter interpretation." I prefer to judge an activity that is not infinitely regressive - if his theory argument is stupid, point out why it is stupid and move on rather than introducing more theory. Counter-interpretations need RVIs to count as a reason to vote. If your interpretation sounds something like "the affirmative must not prohibit the negative from..." you are probably on the wrong track. I prefer that RVIs be deployed only as a last resort. If the theory argument is poor, then beat it quickly. If there is a legitimate (questionable) abuse claim, then you probably have no basis for your RVI anyways. I think RVIs are deployed far too often as just another strategic tool, which negatively affects the quality of debates. Your speaks will suffer if you read an RVI when it is unnecessary. I also will not vote on the argument "RVIs only for the aff” – any argument that justifies the RVI for one side logically entails the RVI for the other.

Next, I won't vote on AFC or use it as a reason to prefer a framework - please don't make this argument. As you should be able to tell, I think theory is used too much, and it should not impose itself on issues which ought to be resolved on a substantive level.

Finally, I prefer that your AC not contain a litany of theory spikes. This does not apply to theory arguments providing a defense of an interpretation of the topic. What I have in mind is more or less theory conditions that the negative must meet (neg must have a solvency advocate, there must be literature on both sides, etc.) – in most cases, these arguments should be introduced in the 1AR.


 * Speaks ** : 28.5 and above means you deserve to clear.


 * Misc: 1. ** Come to the round already pre-flowed. ** 2. ** Bring paper for me! I always forget. ** 3. ** I don't care if you dress up. ** 4. ** I don't care if you read off your laptop. ** 5. ** I don't care if you sit down. ** 6 ****.** **I reserve the right to intervene against arguments that are not factually true**. This discretion will ** not likely ** be used, but if you start telling me Kant's Veil of Ignorance says that we can aggregate happiness you might leave the round complaining about intervention. ** 7. ** **I reserve the right to disregard arguments that are not technically (in a debate sense) true**. For example, if you run a necessary but insufficient burdens bad theory shell against an opponent who is not running a necessary but insufficient burden, even if he concedes the entire shell I will not vote on the theory debate. ** 8. ** As a debater I'd always ask questions and occasionally argue with my judge; with that in mind, I'm open to any questions (or arguments) you might have, just let me finish the RFD before you start. **9.** I really don't like rudeness in round, its not chill. Some might object and claim I was a rude debater myself at some points, however I've come to believe snarky comments/jokes in cx, during speeches etc annoy me.