Peck,+Alan

Last updated: November 11, 2013

Background info: -Debated for four years at Edina High School (2009-2012) -Currently a freshman debating at the University of Kansas (2013-)

Rounds judged on this topic (economic engagement with Latin-America): 30-35 rounds.

Basics: -Clarity over speed. During a speech, you need to be both persuasive and comprehensive, as this is a communicative activity, both of which rely on me being able to comprehend what you're saying. I'm not the best flow, I also I do not have the best hearing, so please be sure to make you're tags clear and to speak at an appropriate volume. I'll yell "louder" or "clear" if either of the two are necessary. -Do what you do best. I'll do my best to be a "tabula-rasa" judge. I don't think any single judge should be able to define what debate is, or what debate should be, therefore I have no right to impose my view of debate onto the debaters. I will try to avoid interjecting my views as little as possible when evaluating rounds. The only exception to this being arguments like racism/sexism/homophobia/ableism good and etc. Debate should be an inclusive and safe environment, and I feel these kind of arguments disrupt that, as well as make the debate community look bad. I will not vote on these arguments. -I will try to intervene as little as possible, though some may be inevitable. Debate is meant to be done by the debaters, and it's your job to persuade and explain to me how I should vote. If neither side explains to me how to frame the debate, this will force me to intervene, and make conclusions based on simply on how I've interpreted the round. This takes the power away from the debaters, and I likely will make a worse decision because of that. -Impact calculus is a must. If you don't tell me what to prefer in this round, and how it relates to the other teams arguments, it's going make it extremely difficult for me to render a decision. This goes the same for dropped arguments. If the implications of dropping an argument aren't explained, it won't have any relevance in my decision. -Jokes are always good, even the worst of puns. Especially regarding myself, people I know, Minnesota "sports," etc. -Prep stops when the flash-drive leaves the computer. Although I'll be relatively lenient if you're having some tech problem which may preclude you from doing this quickly (i.e. computer randomly shuts down, etc.).

Disads: -They're cool. I generally prefer more case-specific DA's as opposed to politics, but I'm definitely willing to vote on either.

Counterplans: -Sure. -Not a huge fan of generic process CP's, but do what you gotta do. -CP's should probably be functionally and textually competitive. -I won't kick the CP for you, unless you tell me to. -Advantage CP's are awesome.

Kritiks: -Specificity is essential (for both sides). Generic K debates can be atrociously boring. The more the kritik is contextualized in context off the aff (or the other way around) the better. -While I have some experience with certain K literature, don't not assume I understand what you're talking about (although you're expected to be giving an explanation anyway). I have very little experience with authors like Baudrillard, Deleuze and/or Guattari, etc. -I'm also more open to language kritiks (i.e. g-lang, ableist language, etc) than most judge are, so feel free to run those. -Some K's I especially enjoy/find interesting include: Security, Predictions, Levinas, and Anthropocentrism.

Performence/K-Aff's: -I'm pretty open to these arguments, though I haven't judged many of these debates, so if you're going for these arguments in front of me, just be sure to explain to me how I evaluate the round in terms of whatever you're advocating. -While in general, I think having some association with the topic is usually good, at least from a stasis standpoint, however if you can defend why you don't have to defend the topic/why the topic may be bad, then that's fine. -Basically, you just need to defend whatever method you decide to utilize (i.e. Dance, hip-hop, narratives, etc.) -For those going against these arguments, I think it'd be much better for you to actually engage in the arguments, then just reading framework. Not to say I won't vote on it if you're winning it, but not only are teams who read these kind of advocacies usually more experienced at answering framework, but explaining why their particular advocacy is bad, is far more persuasive then "limits" or "topical version of the aff."

T: -I go back and forth a lot on what I think about reasonability vs. competing interps. I think I side slightly more with reasonability (that may just be the 2A in me). My views on this change pretty frequently, so feel free to ask before the 2NR what I'm thinking, but keep in mind that may change again before the 2NR's over. -If you go for this, make sure you explain what comes first (i.e. limits, fairness, etc.) and why.

Theory: -I find most violations to be a reason to reject the argument and not the team (condo/dispo bad being an obvious exception). -It's going to be an up-hill battle if you try to get me to vote on theory cheap-shots (i.e. severance/intrinsicness bad, etc). -Theory should be impacted the same way you'd impact a DA. You need to explain to me what the impact is, how it affects the round, and how I should view/frame the debate in my decision. -Conditionality is probably fine if it's a condo CP and a condo K, though I can be persuaded otherwise if explained well enough. Anything more, and you're probably pushing it.

Impact Turns: -Love them. Especially heg bad and dedev. I also like warming good more than I probably should (I was probably dropped on my head as an infant or something).

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round, or email me: peck[dot]alan1218[at]gmail[dot]com