Shaner,+Jake

Columbia University ‘14 Davis High School (Utah) ‘10
 * Jake Shaner**
 * Debate Coach, Stuyvesant High School**

I am a skeptical person. If you want to play to my preferences, then clash with your opponents, make strongly warranted arguments, and tell me why you deserve to win (aka role of the ballot/why you meet it best). My ideal debate is between an aff that is both strong in its foundations and __ unique __ in its approach to the topic, and a neg strategy that employs __ creative __ reads on arguments applied __ specifically to the 1AC __.

I want to hear you debate how you debate your best - if that's a politics disad, then throw down a good story of Congressional horse-trading; if that's impact turning hegemony, then explain why multipolarity is better for stability (or better yet, why Chinese hegemony is better for world peace. I would love to hear that debate). I'm totally okay with you sitting down before time is up if there is nothing new left to say or you are just done.

I want to hear what you are good at. I like judging debates because __I like to be persuaded__, not because I like to hack for the politics disad, conditionality, passive nihilism, Consult Japan, or whatever other argument you only find in a policy debate.My interest in an ongoing debate has almost nothing to do with what the titles of my flow pages are, and everything to do with the execution and knowledge of the debaters themselves.

Speaker points -

Although this is just an approximation, I would bet that __ my 25/75 percentile in speaker points is a 27.3/28.5 __. For me, points below 27 demonstrates a lack of meaningful participation or logical thought, and points above 29 mark a debater who was effective, persuasive, and strategic. If I can't understand the text of your cards, you will be hard pressed to get higher than a 28.5, no matter how well the rest of the debate goes for you. I strongly believe that I should be able to follow the debate from start to finish without having to call for cards just to piece the debate back together.

Argument preferences -


 * Defense** - I really, really like defensive argumentation - solvency deficits, internal-link takeouts, all of it is quite useful and extremely underutilized. I will vote aff/neg on presumption. I do not find the argument that ".01% risk of nuclear war means we must pass the plan at all costs" to be persuasive at all - not to say I won't vote on it but a smart debater will easily persuade me with a "this is a ridiculous framing of the issues" line of thought.


 * Impact Turns** - these debates often promote the most clash and force debaters to think about the issues that they advocate. While I think defense is key to check argumentative stupidity, impact turns are often produce the most exciting, comparative debates. I want to see these debates, and you'll probably get higher speaker points as a result of the clash that they produce.


 * Topicality**- Absent argumentation presented against this, I probably lean towards competing interpretations, but I don't think that I should define what the impact of the interpretation on debate is - that's the job of the debaters. As such, I have found that I rely heavily on evidence comparison in the definition debate. If you are going for topicality in the 2NR, please note that I think context, quality, and authorship really matter in your definition debates, and I think quantity is never a replacement for the above. Additionally, though I feel like this should be obvious, I don't think a topicality 2NR should be anything but topicality.

1. ** SLOW DOWN. ** I did not judge a single theory debate last year where I was able to flow everything that was said by each team. I am not a typing/writing automaton, no one is. I can't believe that debaters are still making theory their fastest debates. No judge that I have ever talked to has said to me, "You know what I want to hear more of - those super fast theory debates." I guarantee you will be happier with my decision if you make a coherent theoretical objection than the disconnected, blippy, mangled phrases that I'm trying to scribble before moving onto the next set. 2. Tell me why I should reject the team, or I'll default to rejecting the argument, unless its conditionality. I can be convinced process counterplans are okay to test the affirmative, but tread lightly when it comes to the more ludicrous ones (aka Consult ___). 3. I think I lean aff very slightly on conditionality. I don't think that multiple counterplans are bad, and a counterplan and a critique are probably not too much for a 2AC to handle. However, at a fundamental level, I have an issue with the neg being able to defend multiple **contradictory** worlds. This doesn't mean I am a sure vote for the aff in a condo debate - like I said above, one CP and one K, or two CPs, is probably not abusive in most situations. I just think its important from an ethos-level for you to know that I am sympathetic to claims about affs needing to defend against 3+ contradictory positions. 4. If you do go for a counter-advocacy in the 2NR, make it explicitly clear that I should consider the status quo as well or else my RFD will be plan vs. counter-advocacy. Consequentially, you must do the work for me to consider the status quo in addition to telling me to consider the status quo to have me vote neg.
 * Counterplans/theory** - A few notes-

The politics/election disad could be an educational tool, if used correctly, to learn about Congress, presidential powers, whip-counts, etc. However, the only thing I've learned from judging these debates is that no one knows a thing about what they are talking about, including and especially the authors of the evidence cited in these debates. If you want to win on politics in front of me, I suggest spelling out a causal chain that is at least a little logical. If you want to beat a politics disad in front of me, attack the link; for instance, will lifting the embargo on Cuban oil actually kill the attempt to raise the debt ceiling? I would love to hear a politics disad that makes sense, but I doubt one exists, especially in the present.
 * Disads** - This is mostly about the politics disad - like everyone else, I think that other well-research and well-executed disads are important and interesting arguments.


 * Critiques** - I am well-versed in nearly all K lit that is used in debate. I expect that I will know what you are talking about in any given debate. However, like I said above, this does not mean that this is what I particularly care to hear, nor does it mean that I will give you extra leeway to throw jargon and shoddy analysis around. Be specific, be thorough, and be persuasive.


 * Non-traditional arguments** - I do have my own opinions as a participant and community member about inequality in debate and structures of power, but as a judge I seek to be a critic of argument first and foremost. I think these arguments are best presented with passion and experience tied into well-researched literature. However, I will evaluate them as I would any other argument in a debate where one team wins and another loses.

Paperless notes - **Prep ends when the flash drive exits your computer.** I tried giving teams until they had saved the speech to their flash drive this year, but it increased the length of the debates considerably. **If you or your partner continue to prep, I will start prep again.** Giving the non-speaking partner the speech is either part of prep or can happen after the other team has got the speech and the speech is starting. Should a computer die in the middle of a speech, I'm perfectly willing to stop and give the team a reasonable amount of time to fix the computer or, preferably, to grab their partner's computer. However, should a computer freeze during prep time, I will not stop prep time - I see it as no different than if you can't find that link turn you desperately need as a result of making a mess with your paper.


 * Lincoln-Douglas Debate**

My experience from 7+ years in policy debate strongly informs my judging philosophy - I think that plans, counter-plans, and critiques are probably all good. I also have a pretty extensive background in philosophy, especially in continental philosophy, from my academic work. I did a little LD in high school, but I am pretty new to judging. I will make myself open to all arguments and styles, and I have no problem voting on any argument. That said, I think that there are a few things that I will take into a debate with me:

1. Role of the judge - I view myself primarily as a critic of argument, in that I decide a winner and a loser based on the arguments the debaters present to me. I am much more comfortable in a well-impacted, clearly-framed debate where I am given reasons by the debaters to vote for or against the arguments. I'm unlikely to be persuaded by exclusionary framework arguments based on some kind of preservation of a norm, unless a strong defense is made for why that norm is good outside of it being the norm.

2. Speed vs. Clarity - fast debates are good. Clear debates are better. If you had to choose one or the other, **SLOW DOWN.** Even top-level LD competitors have major clarity issues, and you will undoubtedly be in a better position if I can understand your argument. I will not call for your speech shells after a debate, and if you are speaking as if you expect me to read your analytic arguments, then you should clear up your speaking. I think there is a fundamental difference between evidence (which has context, interpretation issues, etc.) and analysis, which is what you are supposed to be providing for me in order to beat the other team.

3. Theory - I did not judge a single policy theory debate last year where I was able to flow everything that was said by each team (and LD is notorious for being even blippier). I am not a typing/writing automaton, no one is. I can't believe that debaters make theory their fastest debates. No judge that I have ever talked to has said to me, "You know what I want to hear more of - those super fast theory debates." I guarantee you will be happier with my decision if you make a coherent theoretical objection than the disconnected, blippy, mangled phrases that I'm trying to scribble before moving onto the next set. **I am thoroughly unpersuaded by theory landmines. If that is your strategy for winning, expect to get low speaker points whether you win or lose the debate.**

4. Depth over breadth - there isn't all that much speaking time in a single debate, I would prefer to see you exhibit your strongest critical thought rather than your most proliferated arguments. I have a slight distaste for conditionality, in that I feel a lot of sympathy for affirmatives who have to defend against contradictory positions. That said, I don't feel any sympathy for affirmatives who get out-strategized or out-teched. Take that for what you will.

5. Paperless notes - **Prep ends when the flash drive exits your computer.** I tried giving teams until they had saved the speech to their flash drive last year, but it increased the length of the debates considerably. **If you continue to prep, I will start prep again.** Should a computer die in the middle of a speech, I'm perfectly willing to stop and give the team a reasonable amount of time to fix the computer. However, should a computer freeze during prep time, I will not stop prep time - I see it as no different than if you can't find that link turn you desperately need as a result of making a mess with your paper.