Enthoven,+Julia

September 2011

I debated four years on the national LD circuit for Hockaday and will be a freshman at Stanford this year.

I try to vote on the flow as much as I possibly can, which means I will vote on just about anything that is warranted. Please ask me any questions you have about my paradigm before the round.

Framework: I evaluate rounds by determining the evaluative mechanism (whether it’s a standard or burden or theory voter) and judging the offense linking to that mechanism. I don’t care how you set it up as long as you tell me which arguments are relevant to my decision. This also means that I really don’t like ACs that don’t have framework, assume an implicit criterion, or just plan to link into the neg framework in the second speech.

Comparison: Please weigh, level, and tell me which arguments come first. If you don’t give an explanation about why your argument precludes another, then you can’t be upset if I vote on their argument. Remember that weighing is not enough; you need to compare your weighing with your opponent’s weighing. I will always try to prefer debaters’ weighing and comparison to my own intuition about which arguments come first.

Theory: I prefer and default to a competing interpretations paradigm. It’s fine if you go for reasonability, but make sure you give me a threshold at which something is reasonable or not. I have a low threshold for RVIs, but you must actually run one. I will not vote on “turns” against an interpretation since you must show that your opponent is being **//unfair//** before you have offense. I also don’t like (although I will vote on them) offensive counter-interpreations (ie. the aff must be allowed to run a plan and they violate since they say I can’t run a plan). Just put in a short RVI and I’ll vote there. Also, I have a low-threshold for theory against miscut evidence. You are responsible for everything that is in your case, even if you didn’t write it.

Kritiks and other confusion: I’m fine with K’s as long as they have an explicit implication on the round or on the ballot. I’m not well versed in the literature so make sure to slow down for crucial links, extend clearly, and give me a ballot story at the end of the round. Also, if you are running something critical, be clear in cross-examination and don’t evade your opponent’s questions. Incomplete or ambiguous answers will confuse me and be unfair to your opponent.

Speed: I’ll call clear if you are going too fast. Don’t make me call it more than three times.

Speaker Points: I’ll drop your speaks for being nonresponsive or being a jerk in cross-x. If your opponent asks you a question, be straight with the answer, not sarcastic or evasive. When debaters play dumb or act pretentious in cross, I see it as a sign that they are not ready to defend their case because they won’t clarify it for their opponent. I also don’t like when people go for both fairness and education in a theory shell in the 1AR or NC and then only go for one in the second speech; it seems contradictory or shifty to me to give reasons why something is important and then outweigh it later. Lastly, I don’t like it when debaters use the same warrant for multiple arguments and then extend it, even if it has been answered elsewhere on the flow. If you drop some spike that you have already responded to, just point out the implicit clash.

I don’t mind questions about my decision, but keep in mind that nothing you say can change my decision, obviously.