Star,+Noah

I debated LD for 3 years at Lexington High School. I qualified to the TOC twice and was pretty successful on the national circuit.

The paradigm below is just sort of my first draft of how I think I will evaluate rounds. After I judge more this summer and early in the season I will most likely update it. I firmly believe that experience is the best way to actually formulate a judge philosophy so this is all a bit circumstantial at the moment.

First as an Overview,

If you debate how I did in high school, then I am a great judge for you. Tech and Savvy Argumentation go a long way in my book. I am great at evaluating the util debate, policy arguments, theory, and the technical underpinnings of any debate round. I can certainly evaluate a framework debate but I will do so from a technical perspective not a philosophical one. I don’t care if your arguments are philosophically or factually bankrupt, if you can win them then I will vote for them. That being said, that standard doesn’t apply to spikes or underdeveloped arguments. I will not vote for preclusive arguments and I will not vote for pre-standard arguments that are not justified by evidence. This may seem a little bit stringent but I am sorry that I think debate has some educational value beyond the analytical manipulations of high school students. I don’t think evidence is an appeal to authority, it’s an appeal to education. I spent the large portion of my debate career trying to kill the skep/apriori/bad arguments fad and I will continue to do so as a judge.

Now to the line by line,

Framework: As mentioned above, I can certainly evaluate a framework debate, but I will do so from a technical perspective. Evidence and internal link comparison goes a long way. Stay away from hiding behind philosophical terminology to make your arguments and do it yourself. But of course, I live and die by trutil, so please go ahead and run your consequentialist theories.

Theory: 1) It doesn’t take much for an aff to win an RVI in front of me. I think that RVIs are dumb but I think that they are the only way to at least try and counterbalance against neg time skew. BUT, I will not vote for an RVI off an I meet. I meets are terminal defense, not offense back to your interpretation. I will only vote for an RVI if you win offense back to a counter-interpretation. 2) I do not default to reasonability or competing interpretations. I would like to see more debaters utilize the “framework debate” on theory to make better answers. Reasonability can be extremely helpful for affs who are facing multiple violations that are seemingly stupid. 3) I do not like I meet blitz, make offensive arguments 4) I will vote off meta-theory if it is impacted and explained well. 5) Impact things clearly and you don’t have to do it to exclusively fairness or education. I find more specific voters like advocacy skills very compelling and hope that impacting back to it becomes a more frequent practice Impacting: It is a lost art form, spend time developing your impacts. Frameworks should be used to FRAME impacts not just preclude them. Offense will always be the way to my ballot so spend time explaining why yours outweighs. This is especially important if you are running a dense framework case and/or a K. Explain your offense to me so I know what I am signing my ballot for.

Disclosure: I am pro disclosure and I will vote on disclosure theory. I hate it when people wont disclose cites and/or free ride off the NDCA wiki. If you are able to prove either of those things true, I will instantly find your theory argument more compelling. But otherwise I will hold it to the same threshold as any other theory argument.

If you don't like my paradigm. I don't care. Don't pref me. Don't argue with me. Just don't pref me. I am sorry I don't know how to evaluate the truth function of the resolution. But I do know how to evaluate tech and probabilities so if you don't like it then strike me.