Sharp,+Daniel

Disclaimers:

First of all, I usually find most judge philosophies to be either cookie-cutter and uninformative or tell you in a fairly verbose manner that you can't run certain arguments that you would like to run. Hopefully, this will be neither. I have lots of strong beliefs and opinions about debate and what goes on in it.However, to be perfectly honest, my opinions and manners of thinking change from day to day, and often even round to round. I try to take very seriously the idea that my predispositions are mutable, and often find that good debates force me to question them. The basic thing to take away from this fact is two-fold. First, though I will try to keep things updated, if you have specific questions //you should ask//. I am not going to list a whole lot of caveats about how I feel about obscure debate questions (say, the intrinsicness argument on politics or if the conditions counterplan is competitive). I am very well versed in these technical questions, but I more or less don't care at all, find them uninteresting, and think there are good arguments on both sides of most theory debates. But, if your nervous about the status your counterplan or if you can read a critique, don't be. This brings me to my second point: I will never, ever disallow an argument, no matter how stupid, boring, or abusive I might find it. This doesn't mean that anything goes; it just means you have to give me a rational argument why whatever you are doing is justified (or, conversely, whatever they are doing isn't. In short, I'm not the police, so do whatever you want.

Experience:

I debated highly competitively on the national circuit for four years in high school, debated a couple of months at Cal Berkeley, and have been teaching debate in a variety of different environments including summer institutes and regular assistant jobs for 3 years.

General thoughts:

Debate is an argumentative activity, fundamentally. I am concerned with well-thought arguments, whatever form these make take. Here are some loose thoughts on how you can use to win my ballot -

1. I value //explanation// over evidence, and will own read evidence when forced. I do not care how many cards you have or what they say, if you can argue well. Of course, left to my own devices, i will probably would pick an evidenced argument over an equally plausible assertion, but //don't think that just because your cards say something awesome I am going to vote for you//. I want to here you use your evidence effectively, not piggy-back on it.

2. Be persuasive: don't sound like a robot.

3. If i had to pick, i wouldn't debate theory: i don't care what is fair or unfair. That being said, I don't have a particular disposition against any single argument.

4. Look at me when you talk! I will give you facial, if not verbal, feedback. I am very expressive when I judge. You will know if I like what you are saying or not.

Specific Arguments:

If you haven't read the disclaimer above, do so now. I'm not listing my particular views on things; they are in flux, and I don't want to discourage you from doing things you enjoy doing. If you feel the need to ask if something is ok, that means you should just go ahead an ask me. But, I promise, I will listen to anything.

That being said, I will deal with some general questions about 'styles of debate.

Policy Debate:

Contrary to popular misconceptions, I love policy debate. I think it is fun, interesting, and exciting. Moral of the story, if this is what you do when you debate, then just do it. I debated Kritiks most of my career. //That does not mean I like them any more than any other form of debate//. To be perfectly honest, I would rather see a good heg debate than a bad K debate. Do not be scared off or think that I won't want to hear your process counterplan. I am fairly well versed in high-level, technical policy debates. However, if I look confused, that means I am trying to communicate that I do not understand something about your argument, which means you should explain it better.

Kritiks:

When I debated, I debated the K more often than not. For this very reason, //I have a very high threshold// on Ks. I like them, but do not tailor to me because you think the K is an automatic winning strategy. Make your links specific and your framework argument intelligent. More importantly, don't coast on 'finesse' or try to weasel your way around substantive issues too much (although some of this is both fine and inevitable); answer arguments directly. I won't do work for you.

Performance:

//I am extremely// interested in performance debate conceptually, but often find myself practically disappointed with execution of arguments. I am totally fine with any of the wacky or revolutionary shit you are down on, just do not forget the same standards of explanation and argumentation apply (unless you explain to me why they don't), even when you 'change the game.'

Disclaimer #2:

Be nice to each other. I was often very mean in debates (perhaps even outside of them too). That is my biggest regret as a debater. Hopefully, when you look back years after your debate career is over, you will find many norms about the community - perhaps even the whole activity itself - to be as silly as I find it to be. That being said, you should recognize that your opponents, coaches, and probably even yourselves have huge parts of their identities invested in their identities as 'debaters,' and you should respect that. Don't be mean, call people stupid, or make crude jokes (unless you are friends, or they are about me, or about general cultural phenomenon, etc. Just use your judgments).

I will give very, very different RFDs then you are used to hearing. I will ask you questions, write on the board, and make you think. be prepared.

Some Things that I hate (I will keep updating these as I go)

1. Do NOT use buzzwords or jargon -I think care mastery of the use of debate terms often masks actual argumentative fallacies. Please do not use ANY buzzwords, if you can avoid it. Your speaker points will increase if you do this.

2. I will not vote on theory cheap shots

3. I WILL dock your speaker point if you do not make the debate an accessible debate for everyone.

4