Slater,+Jon

I did 4 years of LD debate at Apple Valley (MN) and graduated in 2011.


 * Decision Calculus:**

I default to a comparative worlds framework when making my decision. However, if an alternate interpretation is justified in round (eg truth-testing) then I am willing to use that instead. Just make sure you are incredibly clear as to what I am supposed to vote on, and why it means you win the round. The clearer the ballot story is, the more likely I will vote for you.


 * Framework:**

Your arguments must link to a standard in order for me to vote off of them. It doesn’t matter if it’s a value/criterion structure or burden/standard/whatever, as long as it tells me which arguments matter. Keep in mind that this means I won’t be voting for “a priori” arguments that are not clearly articulated as such in the constructive. Even “a prioris” appeal to some standard for why they matter. Also, try to keep the framework debate as clear as possible.

Some tips for a clean framework debate that will get you high speaks:

Avoid pointless value debate, in fact, getting rid of the value completely might be a good idea Agree to a single framework in the round when possible Signpost, signpost, signpost. Its almost impossible to do it too much Make arguments against specific warrants in your opponents evidence, avoid just grouping the whole standard and generically responding to it


 * Evidence:**

In general, I prefer statistical and empirical evidence to analytic arguments. Thus, the more quality evidence you have, the better. If you can successfully compare your evidence, then you will see a significant boost in speaks (especially if you can do methodology comparison.)


 * Theory:**

I default to competing-interpretations. While theory has its place, it can get very annoying very quickly when used too often. Only run theory in front of me if there is fairly clear abuse. I usually view fairness as the best voting issue, but education can also be argued if you’d like. Its very important that you generate offense in the theory debate. So if you have a counter-interp, try your best to put turns on your opponents standards in their shell. Which reminds me, THEORY MUST BE IN SHELL FORM. If it's not, I will not vote for it. Also, if you choose to make pre-emptive theory arguments in constructives, the exact phrasing of your interp should appear somewhere in the case. That way when you get up in the 1AR and extend the argument/read a shell, I will know exactly what you are talking about and your opponent will have no excuses. This can be incredible effective when implemented properly.


 * Speed:**

I can pretty easily understand most debaters, but when I can’t, it’s usually because they are unclear. However, if you go quickly and end with a significant amount of extra time, I will get annoyed and your speaks will suffer. Speed should be a tool to improve argumentation, not to confuse your opponent. Your speed should also vary depending on the type of argument you are running. If you are running a pretty clear util framework with some empirical evidence, go as fast as you like. But if you are running some complex meta-ethics or critical arguments, assume I don’t have knowledge of the authors and slow down.


 * Critical Arguments:**

While I think that some critical arguments can be very good, most of them seem fairly weak. If the argument is really only designed to be incredibly convoluted and confusing, I don’t want to see it. In fact, I think that some of the best critical arguments are very straightforward. When running these types of positions, be as clear as possible. This entails reading at a slower than normal rate if its complex (this only applies if you are a very fast debater normally), explaining how different arguments interact, and why winning the K wins the round. I think this last part is missing in many Ks. Don’t assume that calling it a K means it’s magically a prerequisite to everything else.


 * Speaker Points:**

30: Incredible. You should definitely be a top competitor at the tournament.

29: Excellent. You successfully executed a smart strategy and should make it far in the tournament.

28: Great. There were some minor flaws, but overall a good performance. You will have a shot at clearing.

27: Adequate. You did what you needed to do, but in an inefficient or unclear way. You may might clear.

26: Below Average. You probably won’t clear

25: Poor. You have things you need to significantly improve upon before you’ll have a chance of clearing.

<25: You were offensive in round.


 * The List:**

I also agree with Chris Theis' list of arguments he will not vote for:

"I will not vote for the following arguments: - Moral Skepticism - Error Theory - Hard Determinism (Sorry, your L its predetermined) - A priori's without a developed justification for a truth testing paradigm - Theory counter interpretations that lack either a RVI or a reason they violate the interpretation - Saying obviously horrible things are actually good. For example: "Extinction is good," "Nuke war is good," "The Holocaust was good." - A "triggered" or "contingent" ethical framework (or lack thereof) that is not advocated in the first speech.

If you run these arguments you will get no higher than a 25."