Arijanto,Sasha

DEAR PEOPLE: I have not judged since September/October so that means a) I don't have (much) experience with the literature on the topic b) I have not recently had to listen to or understand complex technical debates with theory or philosophy c) I haven't had to flow or listen to a lot of speed in a number of months. Below is what my paradigm was/basically from my previous judging run

I debated LD for four years at The Altamont School in Birmingham, Alabama, qualified my junior and senior year to the TOC, and my senior year to NFL. Whoa-- I know!


 * WARNING**: I really cannot flow that fast. If you're ultra clear I can flow you, so if you debate like Ben Lewis, Jake Nebel, or Paul Tyger, congratulations I can flow you. If you're going blazing fast I cannot and I will miss your argument and i WILL NOT VOTE ON ANYTHING I didnt understand from the first speech and cannot articulate back to you after the first speech. Not cross-ex, not the 1AR, and not after the round when you're angry that I don't understand all your complex Baudrillard that you read at 300 wpm even after you read my paradigm and I told you before round not to do.

Also, you should go soooo slow for tags and author names. Embarrassingly slow.

There are no arguments that I won't vote on but you should know that if you choose to run an argument that appeals to my role as a judge and my opinion such as but not limited to theory, micropolitical impacts, "projects" then I will be inclined to use my own judgments.

I'm not going to just say I don't agree with **theory** and not look to it, but I am sympathetic to arguments that I think are just true about theory. Especially from an Aff that has to deal with a shell when there really isn't that much abuse and it's just a time suck.

I would REALLY LIKE it if you weigh. Weigh well and weigh often and not just impacts, but arguments. Say why you winning X precludes or outweighs Y even if they win Y (to borrow from Neil). I am serious. If you don't compare arguments, I will have to which means intervention and bad speaks.

I agree with Pat Donavon "I do not view arguments as independent just because they were made in different places on the flow. If the way an argument is explained connects it with another argument, I will consider that connection even if it is not explained in terms of the flow. Because of this, you can maximize efficiency by using embedded clash and comparing multiple distinct arguments in one place in your speeches."

But I think that an argument has to be extended with a warrant to count as an extension, but "...an argument that is explained well by the end of the debate will have a much greater weight than an argument that is just mentioned or not explained clearly (Affs: this means that the 1ar doesn't need to explain arguments that there isn't much clash on in order to extend them.). In low- and mid-level debates, thoroughly explaining one or more major pieces of offense is the best way to do well because both debaters will usually get too caught up in the line-by-line and won't have much offense at the end. If you sit on one key offensive argument, then you will likely win those debates." (Pat Donovan, 2011)

I HATE logical consequence arguments, anything that is seriously offensive if you think about it like turns "Rape Good" or Genocide Good, women are stupid, etc. I think that arguments about why certain races or groups are not present in the community are usually offensive.
 * RANDO Pre-Conceived Biases**

I hate disclosure theory and I will probably give you an L 20 if you run it unless you are 1. actually an underprivileged school 2. have discussed disclosure with the person before this round or ran it against them and they say this 3. you run something that is new and true and NOTHING like any other disclosure theory I've heard before which are all unwarranted and lies.

You will get high speaks if you speak fluently and powerfully without being abrasive, use reasonable amounts of prep and speech time (i.e. don't use all four minutes then run a K, don't keep that 2NR going even when you're clearly done), are funny, are polite as hell, run something exciting, respect my paradigm.

I will give you awful speaks if you are unnecessarily mean, run something offensive, are abhorrently unclear, completely disregard my paradigm even after I explained it verbally to you, argue with me **rudely** after the round. I will change your speaks, seriously.