Acevedo,+Jonathan

I debated in LD Strake Jesuit for 3 ½ years. I qualified for TFA State my junior and senior year, advancing to octos my senior year, and TOC my senior year with three bids, (Greenhill, St. Marks, Harvard). I cleared and did well at various other tournaments. I am a rising Second Year at UChicago.

**Basically the “general judging preference” is all you should really read, unless you want to know my policy on any particular argument. Seriously don't waste your time reading a long paradigm.** I think I'm in general a pretty standard judge in the way most judges related to Strake should be viewed (most of how Castillo judges will be the way I do).

**General Judging Preference:** I tend to view the round in terms of how well I understand individual arguments in favor of a variety of claims. Those claims will justify a terminal burden (i.e. what you need to do to win the round) and will explain how you meet it. I think my understanding of arguments is preferable to an interventionist or tab approach because it captures debate's nature as a communicative event. As a debater it is important that you are very clear in your arguments, that you make intelligent arguments (bad arguments are usually impossible to understand because they're generally incoherent claims), and that you speak with clarity and at a rate I can follow. One last note on this issue: the level of understanding I need is going to be proportionate to the amount of clash and importance of a certain layer. If I know that it's a strict framework debate and only one side has util offense it isn't necessary for me to understand the links in that util offense, but it would be necessary for me to be able to understand important arguments on the framework.

**If you must read specifics:** I preface my entire paradigm by saying that these are all judging preferences absent a won argument to lead me in the other direction. I will vote a way that is not in my paradigm if I am given a reason to by the debates. Eg: I'll vote on risk of offense if the debater wins why that is a thing or I will easily accept a competing interp model if its justified even though I default to reasonability.

Specific Issues

**Theory:** I default to reasonability with a brightline of demonstrated abuse. If you show them to be abusive via your standards then you win the theory debate. I am amendable to shifts in this brightline. (If you care why I have this opinion read this article: __@http://nsdupdate.com/2012/how-competing-interpretations-has-ruined-theory-debate/__ ) I assume drop the argument unless otherwise told, but I am intrigued by more nuanced implications in theory voters that is tailored to the abuse. For instance, if you run AFC bad then I would love to hear an argument in the voter that says something like "the standards imply that they have an unfair advantage on the framework debate because I have to engage both layers so if I win theory accept my framework" instead of generic drop the debater arguments. I also am very open to RVIs but I don't default to them. I won't default either way with education or fairness as a voter. I want to hear a justification for why they are voters. I would also like to hear unconventional, or less run, voters to make the round more interesting if you so choose.

**Paragraph theory:** Do it if you want. I do, however, think that your opponent shouldn't be held to responding to it, if they choose not to, until a violation is articulated.

**Presumption:** First off, I believe in terminal defense. I think it is pretty simple what terminal defense would look like. You would need to demonstrate that an argument doesn't have an internal warrant or that the internal warrant is fallacious and then give a proactive counter-argument to the claim. That would mean they have no reason to assume their claim is valid. Therefore, presumption can be triggered off framework defense. I am also open to arguments that say I should presume because the round is irresolvable for some epistemological problem or because the resolution is incoherent (or maybe as the implication of a theory shell -- see above). I think that different types of presumption triggers may warrant different reasons to presume one way or the other (i.e. if the resolution is incoherent then what am I supposed to do with the claim that I should default towards rights protection and affirming protects rights). I won't default to presuming either way because I think it would be unfair if someone reads my paradigm then intentionally triggers presumption in their last speech believing that it's legitimate to assume I would presume their way absent any prior presumption arguments in the round.

**Risk of offense:** I honestly cannot grasp why this might be a thing personally which is why I'm far more inclined to vote on presumption, but like anything else, if you justify it and win your justification, you can win off it. If you want to know why I don't default to risk of offense, feel free to ask me before or after a round.

**Pre-fiat stuff:** This will probably make me uncomfortable if it calls too much upon me as "a person before a debater." As the judge I figure it is probably my duty to evaluate the flow and to not let the flow be corrupted by my personal feelings. I will vote on pre-fiat stuff with a well-warranted role of the ballot argument, as I will with any other well-warranted argument, but I won't be the fastest judge to pull the trigger on this type of argument. I'm not as worried about kritiks because they are generally more abstract and I'll certainly vote on them if they are won. I also don't think I can allow an argument intended to only impact the post-fiat evaluation of the round be used by the other debater in a pre-fiat manner. So no saying "if util is true vote for me because I'd be happier about it" or "if determinism is true why don't we just steal the ballot because we were going to do it anyway.” I have, on the other hand, tried and heard other people try to apply skep to meaning theres no fairness in theory. I may be accepting of this in round if its articulated well, of course if theres other voters in theory you should probably not make this your only strategy against theory.

**Critical stuff:** explain it well. I have a bit of experience with Levinas, Nietzsche, and a few other critical philosophers, but not everything. That being said, I am definitely open to voting on anything critical if its well warranted.

**LARPing:** I never really did it, so I didn't think a lot about it in high school. If you're a LARPer make sure you win the framework (and hopefully not with super-generic util cards, Bostrum, and AFC; however if you must run these arguments and they are in fact won I will let them slide I would just prefer a more creative util justification) and clearly win the util debate. I will vote on it if its won, its just not what I was used to running in high school.

**Speaks:** They will be based of your relative performance to the quality of competition at the tournament.

**Framework:** I love a good framework debate. I don't mind a lot of blips but I hope that you make good arguments in there so that I can catch them and so that all of your responses aren't terrible. (In this context blips would be best understood as short, but well warranted, arguments. Obviously a terrible one sentence blip probably won't be sufficient.) I ran a ton of deont and arguments relating to it. Cards or analytic are fine, but if you string together practical reason cards and don't make a coherent argument I won't be pleased. I also ran contractiarianism, existentialism, and some forms of rawlsian frameworks quite frequently, and I'm likely to understand these really well. The criticism about incoherent justifications of practical reason apply to these as well.

<span style="color: #222222; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">**Analytics:** I am actually a big fan of analytic arguments. I think that if well warranted, a lot of times analytics can get to the point more quickly and more coherently than cards that have been chopped up and mashed together to fit a 6-7 minute speech time limit. I will treat any well warranted analytic in the same way that any judge would treat a card; however, if the analytic is blippy and unwarranted, I will not treat it with the same respect.

<span style="color: #222222; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">**Rude/repugnance/etc:** I don't think I'll get offended by many arguments. I don't think pointing out repugnant conclusions are just appeals to intuition is offensive. I also would be interested in seeing religious arguments, if you so choose run more, because I think that there is a rich layer of philosophy that is just not accessed in debate which can provide for a slightly more enjoyable round than back and forth argumentation about things we hear every round (and because I think, many times, ethics as a discipline is littered with religious ideas).

<span style="color: #222222; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">**Speed:** I will most likely handle any speed; however, sometimes people devolve into running words together and not articulating sufficient, at which point I will call clear repeatedly. Eventually I'll give up. I will also call evidence, and maybe analytics if they are well warranted.