Reisman,+Josh

Debated for four years at the Meadows (2008-2012) Currently debating for GW in DC (2012-?)
 * Josh Reisman**
 * Background**:

- **Speaking points**: are improved by being smart, strategic, and flowing. I don't have any pet-peeves in terms of speaking style but I will make it very clear that the arguments you run (e.g. Spark, Mayan Calendar, anything along those lines) will directly affect your speaker points. I default to the least interventionist way of evaluating rounds and do not have any positions that I am willing to reject on-face. - **Dropped arguments are true arguments:** with that being said, you have to extend the argument credibly if it will hold any weight -- just extend an author, warrant, and argument. the threshold is not very high. - T**opic Knowledge**: I've judged (as of 10/25) around 12 rounds on the transportation topic. Make sure you stress explanation above 40 cards in the block. Make sure that what you are actually saying is being conveyed. Look up at me once in a while and if I look mildly confused... go back and explain.
 * Few Side-Notes:**


 * Paperless:** I love paperless and I will be pretty forgiving of all computer issues. However, don't take advantage of that. If I catch you stealing prep, speaker points will suffer. In order to combat this epidemic that is stealing prep, I will stop prep when the flash drive is handed to the other team. I am understanding when it comes to computer crashes, running out of battery, flashing speeches, readers going to sleep, etc but not when it comes to cheating, stealing, etc.


 * Speed**: if I can understand it, you're fine. If I don't have it on my flow, then the argument was not made. I will make it a point to tell you that I cannot understand what you're saying. However, I hold the view that many judges do in that you have to slow down when reading 10 point theory blocks which usually has (hopefully) a lot of nuance.


 * Topicality/Theory**: I do not necessarily have a "bias" against or for any sort of topicality argument out there. That said, I default to competing interpretations and just saying "reasonability causes a race to the bottom" is not enough to convince many judges, but especially me. If you are going to go for topicality or reasonability, you have to have some terminal impact defense/comparison. Like I said before, I evaluate rounds in the least interventionist way possible. However, if an impact is not there on either side, your putting the ball in my court, which disadvantages you at the end. In terms of the impact level, I tend to be persuaded by more specific types of education/fairness arguments (e.g. Skill-sets, pre-round research, etc) and not just basic claims like "they hurt our fairness."


 * CX**: I listen to it and if you're asking silly questions just so that your partner can get 3 more minutes of prep, then your points will reflect that. I love it when cross x is mentioned in speeches -- it kills me when people ask awesome questions but they fail to bring them up in their speeches.


 * Case Debates**: I prefer big stick case debates. Those types of affs/case debates I find very fun to debate, judge, etc. Diverse and good case arguments will be good in front of me. However, I understand the flip side to this situation. There are those instances that you won't have game on a case. In that situation, impact defense is your friend. Side note, I think that what is somewhat neglected in debate nowadays is a good 5-6 minute 2NC on case. There's a lot of strategic value in it and while I do see it coming back in some ways, I think it should have a bigger emphasis.


 * Counterplans**: I dislike generic counterplans and I value case specific strats/counterplans. Consult NATO-like counterplans or anything on that same level will have a very hard time warranting a negative ballot in front of me. I like seeing prepared, researched, specific debates rather than the generic debate.


 * Kritiks**: In high school, I was very policy-oriented. However, I find myself becoming a little bit more kritikal in college. With that being said, I like K's but don't assume that I know every single bit of literature on your specific K (i.e. Heidegger, Foucault, etc). Your generic ontology K or truth K or death K are not great in any stretch of the imagination. If you’re running a K in front of me on the negative, specific links and a solid articulation of what the alternative does will help you. Let me know what the world looks like post-plan and why that is different post-alt. As a result, alternative solvency presses are persuasive in front of me. If you can highlight how illogical the alternative sounds/would be coupled with an argument about how none of their authors probably agree with each other (this is obviously contingent on the debate) would work very well. In terms of framework, I think both sides should get to weigh their impacts but I can be persuaded otherwise, given good clash and reasons why methodology precedes any sort of policy-making calculus. That said, nuanced framework arguments on the neg are far more persuasive than generic "reps come first" arguments.


 * Also, in terms of the demeanor in round, I was kind of a dick in high-school so I enjoy seeing sarcastic, smart-ass debates. However, don't take that as I want everyone to yell at each other. Have fun just don't sound like robots***


 * Any references to or jokes directed towards Nathaniel Saxe, Tyler Salathe, Joseph Nelson, or Francisco Bencosme will increase your speaker points. Just keep that in mind***

Email me at jcreisman@gmail.com if you have other questions or ask me before the round.