Norman,+Madi

Princeton High School '16 University of Chicago '20 Conflicts: Princeton High School

Updated for Glenbrooks 2016:

I think debate is an exercise in critical thinking and an educational space. My default paradigm for evaluating rounds is determining which debater is winning the framework, then comparing offense under that framework. This framework can be a role of the ballot, an appeal to fairness/education, a normative ethical standard, etc. I’m also sympathetic to ethical/epistemic modesty arguments for how I should evaluate arguments at the end of the round, but this means you’ll have to do much more work contextualizing and comparing your offense.

I read tricks and philosophy my sophomore and junior years, then mostly kritikal arguments during my senior year. Since I stopped reading tricks/started judging, my threshold for voting on tricky arguments has raised significantly. I generally don’t find them impressive, and reading them will not get you high speaks in front of me. I would much rather vote off of a coherent, developed position that’s weighed against other offense than a newly implicated apriori.
 * General argumentative preferences:**

- Disclosure theory; theory with an out-of-round or non-verifiable violation - Bracket theory - Multiple frivolous shells as strategic NIBs for the entirety of the NC strat - Oppression good impact turns of identity-based K’s or other racism/sexism/ableism good arguments - Links of omission (instead, your links should be things the other debater actually said/did in their speech) - Arguments that endanger the safety of any person in the round - Bad politics disads (most politics disads)
 * Specifically–**
 * Things debaters read that I don’t like:**

- Developed, multi-planked interps against abusive strategies - Interesting, smart T - Well-explained frameworks and K’s - Critiques of the K’s method (discourse or post-fiat intersectionality/essentialism k’s, afro-pess discourse indicts, etc.) – you’ll be rewarded with higher speaks for going for these arguments in front of me - T turns the ROB against nontopical affs and specific, embedded arguments about why theory might be nonresponsive to the K and vice versa (as opposed to generic T vs. K arguments, or claims that all theory is exclusionary/all K’s are unfair)
 * Things debaters read that I like:**

- Competing interps > reasonability - No RVI’s (this is the easiest default to override) - Theory as drop the argument and T as drop the advocacy - An OCI does need an RVI unless the standards justify the interp
 * Theory (these are just defaults):**

- I default to perms as a test of competition - I'm impressed by policy arguments with logical/developed/plausible link stories and will boost speaks if you read these
 * Policy arguments:**

- Being funny/witty but not mean will improve your speaks - Knowing what your case says/being able to explain it well is really important for perceptual dominance - Please extend the claim, warrant, and impact of everything you want me to vote on (not just "extend [card name], moving on...") - If your opponent is clearly younger than you/not experienced in progressive circuit debate, don’t go for the theory spikes you read at 350 wpm or otherwise try to exclude them (this will lower your speaks) - I haven't listened to spreading since August, so please be clear and start slowly. Slow down to about half-speed for anything you want me to flow verbatim (like a theory interp, ROB text, plan/CP/alt text), and start at 60-70% of your top speed then build up, especially if it's early in the morning - I’m still not super familiar with continental and post-structuralist philosophy, so err towards over-explaining your Baudrillard or D&G - Prep ends when the flash drive leaves your computer or once the email is sent to the chain
 * Misc/how to improve your speaks:**

Feel free to ask about any paradigmatic preferences that aren’t here before the round, and if you have any questions, you can email me at mlnorman@uchicago.edu.