Seidman,+Julia

I am a coach and a former collegiate Mock Trialer – my preferences on debate are thus skewed somewhat towards practicality and real world impacts. I am also a competent person and I like to think I am perceptive and critical – thus, while I do //prefer// real-world arguments, I am open to a lot of different things.


 * Overview –** I vote off the flow. I want links and impacts and extensions – you need to be clear and consistent in what matters to the round and why it matters. The structure of LD asks me to determine which side better upholds whatever standards are left intact at the end of the round. If an argument does not link to standards, it has no weight in the round. Your final speech should devote significant time to firming up those links and impacts – by that point, I know what is important and it is your job to carry it home. I try to avoid intervention as much as possible, but in reality, it is sometimes difficult. I have tried to explain situations where I think judge intervention most often comes into play below.


 * Practical stuff -** I can handle //some// speed – let’s say 7 out of 10. Clarity is important, especially for taglines and author names. I can flow competently, but I’m not a superstar, so give me clear signposts, tell me where you want me to flow stuff, be orderly, etc. Generally, it’s not much of an issue so long as you give clear crystallization of the round and solid voters at the end.

Critical thinking is paramount – it’s why you’re doing this, it’s why I do what I do, and it’s the most important skill you can develop. Thus, while narrow interpretations may be somewhat limiting, they often encourage more sophisticated critical thinking, and thus are often not really abusive in my mind. Of course, it’s up to you to point that out. Finally, I feel that theory inherently asks for more judge intervention than on-case debate. The NFL ballot states that “neither debater should be rewarded for presenting a speech completely unrelated to the arguments of his or her opponent; there must be clash concerning the major arguments in the debate.” Theory arguments by nature are not as closely related to the resolution or your opponent’s argument; in order to follow this rule, I need a certain amount of room for intervention against theory arguments that are irrelevant, non-specific, or unwarranted. I try to avoid intervention as much as possible, but I will do it to preserve a certain level of fair competition according to the rules.
 * Theory –** I don’t love it, but I will vote on it and in some cases it is justified. I hate it when it is the only response or voter, because it often winds up being more abusive than the original alleged abuse. (I am not a judge who thinks that if you run theory, you can’t respond to substantively – it doesn’t make sense to me to call that a contradiction. You’re just covering your bases, which is fine by me.) Thus, also, RVIs are fine. BUT – whichever side of the theory debate you are on, you need WARRANTS. An argument is an argument, and it needs a warrant. I also hate stock theory that is not really applicable to the nuances of your opponent’s case. Pay attention to subtlety and make sure that your theory is more pointed analysis of the potential direction of the round than rant.


 * Kritiks –** When they’re good, they’re awesome! Like I said, critical thinking is paramount – and thus, if your K is really resolutionally relevant, nuanced, and forms a complete argument, I will like it very much indeed. If it is stock, and not adapted to the resolution, or impractical to the point of silliness, or does not provide any kind of alternative solution, I will not like it because you evidently did not think about it very hard.


 * Plans –** Ugh. They bore me. I’ll vote on them, but don’t expect terribly high speaker points, because I think generally plans are an excuse not to think about the subtlety of the issue. Even when they don’t fiat away some important issue, they usually skirt it somehow, which is boring and doesn’t make you look very ambitious or sophisticated in your thinking.

At the same time, consequentialist frameworks come with some standard problems, too. Firstly, there is gamesmanship which occasionally results in ridiculous impacts. Again, I won’t vote on stuff that doesn’t make sense. Secondly, there is a tendency for people to just keep insisting on preserving public safety when their opponent is talking about some kind of inviolable right – just because you keep a bunch of suburbanites happy doesn’t mean you’re more right. Think critically and LISTEN to your opponent – I’m not sure why, but for some reason I feel like people running consequentialist cases tend to ignore the standards debate more often, at their own peril.
 * Standards** - I do not like deontology very much. Morality is a mercurial and impenetrable animal – what it means on a given day and to a given person varies so much that it almost inevitably leads into self-contradiction. Basically, if you are working with deontology, you need a super-clear criterion and an internally consistent, fully warranted, resolutionally specific, fairly narrow interpretation of what constitutes moral right and wrong in this debate, and you need very well-warranted impacts on that interpretation throughout the debate. You can’t just throw around concepts of “right” and “wrong” and expect to maintain internal consistency. More importantly, you can’t expect that I will really know how to vote on impacts of “this is more right” or “that is wrong.” Wrong for who? Why? Who is the moral actor here? Why should I assume their morals are the same as yours? I will not vote on impacts that don’t make any sense, and morality alone often doesn’t make very much sense to me.


 * Illustrative Examples** - They are terrible. Please do not use them. Please. They are subject to all kinds of wild misinterpretation and misrepresentation and in no way substitute for actual evidence. There is no more surefire way to get below a 25 from me than to warrant all of your arguments with sob stories. If you miraculously manage to win with such a case, don’t think that you should keep running it.


 * Other Evidence –** Evidence doesn’t substitute for analysis. You need both, and if one is expendable, it’s the evidence. Bombarding me and your opponent with statistics is not productive if you can’t explain why they matter to the debate at hand. If you can’t link to standards, it’s not a voter.


 * Offensive Stuff –** By this, I do not mean generating offense. The past two topics, relating to criminal justice, have invited a lot of fundamentally racist fear-mongering in debates. Want to lose speaker points? Talk about how “they” are going to be “running wild” and “hurting innocent people.” Try to freak me out by painting portraits of crazed, predatory young men. There are more subtle versions of this that apply to other resolutions – basically, implications that certain groups of people are inherently less trustworthy, more violent or more callous is offensive and unnecessary. If you can’t win without that kind of rhetoric, I suggest you re-work your case and think more critically about your assumptions. Asking me “Do you want all these violent criminals just running around shooting people?” is not a warrant for your argument and I do not have to vote on it without a warrant.


 * General Courtesy, etc. –** I have only ever interrupted someone for being overly mean once, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t do it again. I don’t give up my weekends to watch kids be mean to each other, I do it because I enjoy learning and civil discourse and engagement with complex issues. If you are so rude, mean, hostile, etc. that it makes me uncomfortable, I will interrupt you and you will get very low speaker points. If I make a face during your opponent’s speech or during CX, you can make eye contact with me and give an eyebrow raise or whatever – it’s not disruptive, it’s part of normal human communication, etc. But don’t roll your eyes, sigh, groan, or otherwise express disdain for your opponent. Avoid hostility and evasiveness in CX, and keep your tone positive and inquisitive, not whiny, aggressive or bored. Please – make this enjoyable for me.