Specht,+Andy

I am a former local circuit high school policy debater from Nebraska. For out-of-towners coming to Westside: it is fair to estimate that my judging capabilities are weaker than your average national circuit judge. I flow line-by-line and vote accordingly unless otherwise instructed not to. I keep terrible theory debate flows; rapid-fire 2NR/2ARs beware.

My paradigm is policy-maker by default. Politically, I swing far enough to the left such that "liberal" is a dirty word to me. If that confuses you, then just assume I'm very liberal. I try to evaluate rounds as impartially as possible, but I am biased against certain arguments, these in particular:
 * Defenses of the status quo in policy debate as an institution. I am very biased //toward// criticism of the modes by which policy debate reifies institutional oppression.
 * Sandbagged theory arguments (e.g. voting issues on perms). I presume "reject the argument, not the team", even when unspoken.
 * Non-topical affirmatives. I am more trigger-happy to vote NEG on T than many other judges. If the resolution is bad but the AFF is good, I vote NEG.
 * Nebulous kritik impacts. For example, I don't know what "increases capitalism" means, but I have a better idea of what "incentivizes neoliberal trade policies" entails.
 * Psychoanalysis.* The not-being-real thing is a stumbling block for me, unless contextualized thoroughly enough.


 * In response to some consternation this has caused, it's fair that I clarify what I mean and be less dismissive: I'm not opposed to normative moral arguments evidenced through literature, particularly by feminist authors, that use psychoanalytic concepts to structure a framework for their own analytical purposes. What I tend to side-eye are one-offs Ks which seem to reinvent the wheel but more confusingly, so as to manipulatively gain a strategic edge.

Minor pet peeves: . I expect debaters to communicate clearly and persuasively above all else. This means I'm not embarrassed to admit I have never read a word of Nietzsche, nor would I be embarrassed to cite this as a primary reason for dropping you. I'm always happy to talk and answer questions about rounds afterwards, so feel free to ask me any questions. I am also open to messages on Facebook before and after rounds.
 * Make eye contact with your opponents during cross-x, not me.
 * Please don't yell your speech at me. This frightens me, and makes it harder for me to concentrate.
 * I am hugely unimpressed by debaters who try to outwit or condescend to their opponents during cross-x. It's never funny, and it makes everyone else uncomfortable.