Passeser,+Dan


 * __Judging Philosophy: Dan Passeser__ **

I debated for 3 years for Cornell University, and I have debated at the novice, JV, and Varsity level. I now go to NYU law, and this is my first year judging. I don’t know a ton about agriculture so make sure you’re clear about the status quo and what it is your plan does. If it’s a minute change in soybean subsidies, you better explain to me why it’s important.  About debate itself: Debate should be fun. Doing things that make debate less fun will make me sad. Berating someone in c/x, stealing prep, stealing the other team’s evidence, yelling at your partner etc. will be reflected in your speaker points. There is NEVER a reason to yell at or get visibly frustrated with your partner in the round. Sarcastically mocking the other team is okay, but sarcastically mocking the other team’s ridiculous arguments and shoddy research is better and encouraged. C/X is where you should own your opponent, and make their arguments look completely ridiculous. If you make me laugh I will give you higher speaker points.  Winning the debate in front of me: Control the meta level issues. Are human rights more important than stopping nuclear war? Should we view ourselves as policy makers? Competing interpretations or reasonability? Education or fairness? Watch me during the debate, if I’m nodding, then I understand what you’re talking about. If I make a face that looks like I’m in a lot of pain, you’ve made a poor strategic choice. If you’re unsure what this face looks like and want to see it for future reference, read timecube in the 1NC (then immediately kick it).  Evidence: I will read it if you tell me to in the last two rebuttals, but make sure you tell me to read the right card. Don’t say after the round, oh I know I said Khalizad but I meant. I also don’t really care about the source unless it’s a question of fact. The DOD card saying there are 20,000 special forces troops is more impressive than the random blogger, but if it’s K lit or just an argument, I really only care about the warrant.  My preferences: I will vote against these if you win the argument, I promise, but people want to know anyway, so here it is. I think T should be decided on reasonability, but that an unpredictable interpretation of the resolution may not be reasonable even if it offers plenty of ground. I do think affirmatives should have to be topical, but I won’t interject that into a debate. I love theory and T, I went for them all the time when I debated.  Theory: I believe dispo is okay and that conditionality is cheating, but I also will hold you to a high standard if you go for conditionality bad because I went for it a lot and was pretty good at it. Good pics are good, and stupid pics are bad (says the guy who is responsible for every time Cornell ran the “Iran should be called Persia” CP on last years topic).  A not so brief note about counterplan competition: while I’m perfectly fine judging functional and textual comp debates, my personal belief is that a counterplan is competitive if a person or governmental body could //reasonably// be deciding between the two options. Under this interpretation, pics are competitive, even consult would be competitive (although it might be cheating for other reasons), but international fiat or agent counterplans are NOT competitive. While you’d still have to win this argument in a debate, it’s what I personally believe makes sense. This is because there is no point in debating plan v. counterplan if nobody has the agency to implement both. If there were a cabinet meeting with Bush and his cabinet about reducing agricultural subsidies, and somebody said, I think Congress should do it instead, they’d be laughed out of the room. The same with international fiat, could you imagine if in a cabinet meeting about constructively engaging Iran somebody said, I think the EU should do it instead? It’s not helpful, and would never happen in the real world. Those two policy options could never compete because nobody could ever be deciding between them, so it’s not a competitive counterplan.  The K: I think good K’s are good, and bad K’s are bad. If you can run the exact same 1nc shell every neg round, it’s probably a bad K. I went for Normativity a lot and am very familiar with the literature, but that’s the only K I can say that about. (By the way Normativity is a bad K). I like K’s of capitalism, I think they’re interesting and that the root cause issue will be relevant on this topic, but I hate Zizek. A lot. Make sure you establish what the Alt does and what the world of the Alt looks like. The more specific the better, both for the link and for the alt solvency. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR SOMETHING I DO NOT UNDERSTAND, but I will try very hard to understand.  DA: Good DA’s with specific links are awesome, crappy generics are crappy (there’s a pattern in this philosophy). I do not believe any topical plan on this topic will result in nuclear war, but I understand that’s how debate works. I will vote Aff on defense alone if you’re stone cold winning it, but offense is better. There is not a “risk of uniqueness.” You win an argument like this or you don’t, and if you don’t then there isn’t a “risk of the disad.” Bad DA’s can be beaten with analytics alone, and if you’ve overtagged a bunch of evidence and you only read a sentence on each card in the 1NC I’m not giving your argument a lot of weight.  Case: Love it, who doesn’t? Impact turning or solvency turning someone’s case in the 1nc is a great strat that not enough people go for.  Performance: I don’t really like it, but I also never beat a performance aff in my entire career so I might just be bitter. I think it should be topical, and I think there should be a problem that your performance makes better. If at the end of the debate I’m left thinking, “Okay that’s a good argument but why didn’t you just say it, why did I have to sit through your interpretive dance?” your speaker points will suffer.  Go for what you’re good at, not what I like. I’d rather see a good debate on stuff I hate then a bad debate on stuff I love. Debate well, have fun, and good luck!