Wissmann,Alex

I debated for four years at Kent Denver High School in Colorado, graduating in 2012. I qualified to the TOC my senior year and taught at VBI this summer.


 * TL;DR. Speed is fine. I try to be tab (meaning I will vote for any argument). I like philosophy.**

Long Version:

I’m fine with speed, so go as fast as you want. Slow down on tags and authors. **Slow down on short analytics**.

I’ll say clear a couple of times. If you don’t slow down then I can’t flow you, so I won’t.

Debates I like to see, in order. (quoted from Christian Tarsney, I just agree) “(1) philosophical debates focused on normative framework, (2) empirical debates with lots of weighing and evidence comparison, (3) just plain stock debates, (4) “critical” debates revolving around incoherent non-arguments from obscurantist pseudo-philosophers, and (5) theory debates.”

I try to be as tabula rasa as I can, that doesn’t mean I don't like certain arguments more than others, just that I don’t try to factor that into my decision.

By tab I mean that I will vote for any argument with a warrant. Any claim that lacks a coherent warrant, even if it is conceded, does not factor into the way I vote. However, even if I think a warrant is really bad I’ll evaluate it if its there.

Some Paradigmatic things:

I default to truth-testing. I am open to any other interpretations if they are justified.

On the substantive level, I tend to choose the best standard for offense and weigh both sides under that. If debaters would like to make credence-based argument as to why they should still win off of a standard they aren’t winning because of substantial offense, I am receptive to that. However, I won’t do that analysis myself.

I won’t vote on arguments that I don’t understand at all.

Some things about specific arguments:

K: Most of the time running a kritik seems unnecessary when a debater can simply run it as a normal case with a critical framework. If for some reason you think this doesn’t work, I am perfectly receptive to K’s. While I don’t find anything intrinsically wrong with the argument, I find I don’t like most I hear.

K impacts aren’t special, they need a framework too.

Policy Args: Go ahead. As a caveat, I find it annoying when these positions are used as a bait for theory. I tend to not like super-specific plans, and a lot of them end up not being topical because LD resolutions are not designed for them. CP’s usually fit better, so I find myself liking more of them. DA’s are fine.

Theory: I used to think I like theory, but over time I have become increasingly jaded by its use. As a response to abuse it is obviously fine. I’ll vote for anything if you prove that I should, but that doesn’t mean I like everything. I will vote for RVI’s, but I don’t default that way.

I default to competing interpretations, just because I don’t see a clear way to evaluate based on reasonability. However, if you win that I should vote based on reasonability AND tell me how to actually prove you are reasonable, I am very receptive.

Speaks: I will try to average around a 27.5. A 30 will be pretty tough to get, but so will anything below a 25. If the round is won off of bad arguments or arguments I really don’t like, this is probably where that will be reflected.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round.