Weakley,+Kristof

=Experience= 3 years West High School (1 bid to the TOC senior year) USC '18 Any questions? Please feel free to ask in person or over e-mail: kweakley@usc.edu

=short version= there’s a comprehensive edition of how I think about debate and the activity below if you’re interested in reading it, but if you’re just looking to pref me here’s all you need to know

do what you do best and I’ll do my best to evaluate it fairly don’t drop arguments don’t read horseshit (ospec, fspec, consult ashtar/chuck Norris/jesus/the holy spirit/your mom, incoherent critiques of all varieties [if an argument is in a gray area to you on the horseshit scale, I will probably think it’s horseshit]) one good position is worth a thousand bad ones specifics > generics show me you did deep research on the topic favorite thing to go for in high school: aff – condo, neg – nietszche (do what you want with that information) aff-the closer to the topic the better, the more specific cards the better T-the more evidence the better Theory-love it just be sure you’re clear and well warranted Cp competition-evidence most likely determines it Disads-all about specific good evidence Case-defense is under utilized k-love it if it’s well done, it needs to have a coherent thesis, a link an impact and a way to overcome uniqueness for the link and impact k-aff- please make it about the topic, if you can’t make it topical or resolutional at least try to make it germane framework-merp it’s a bit generic but I won’t hesitate to pull the trigger, I do prefer a topicality violation debate to a framework debate TKO - yes it's a thing in front of me If there is an e-mail chain, I would prefer to be included in it, I will not read along during the speech this just makes calling for cards after the round easier shady biz (clipping, flashing different cards, highlighting tricks, altering evidence, lying etc) - just don't do it; I promise you don't want to force me to render a decision about it

speaker points
I try my best not to inflate speaker points at national tournaments, otherwise I kinda just do whatever I feel like but here's a general guide 25 and below - you pissed me off 26 - could be better 27 - average, competent debater 28 - good, I can tell you are *insert compliment* 29 - excellent 30 - i'm going to tell everyone I interact with about you because you were amazing

You will earn extra speaker points for -showing me your flows after the debate -a specific, well executed strategy -jokes/puns/funny shit -being genuine- not just regurgitating your coaches spoon fed blocks at me -good disclosure practices (having shit on your wiki)

You will lose speaker points for -bad disclosure practices

=long version=

what I think a judging philosophy is
A judging philosophy is like a rule book for individual debates Each rule is an argument; there is a claim, a reason, and an implication to breaking it I believe all humans are fallible (claim), because it is impossible to have perfect knowledge (reason) – therefore my philosophy is subject to change based on what I observe in debates (impact). I, just like other humans, am fallible (although I’d love you to challenge this, I always enjoy compliments). This means I have subjective judgments. I do however take my role as a judge seriously, and will defer to my flow when I make a decision. I can’t know what is objectively true, however I believe a perfectly explained argument with more truth value will beat a perfectly explained argument with less truth value. This is where my subjective beliefs come into consideration (see below, categorized by strength of belief) The argumentative nature of these “rules” means that they can be challenged, that is to say if you persuade me (explicitly or implicitly) that something in this philosophy is stupid/a bad idea, I will change it and it will immediately affect the debate round you’re in I will provide a thorough explanation of each rule, and what breaking each rule means in front of me

fundamental beliefs
Aka: it’s probably really hard to persuade me to change these An argument contains a claim, a reason for that claim, and an impact. And/or: a claim, data, and warrant (distinct from reason, this links your data to support your claim) I believe debate is a game, whose purpose is to train effective and well informed decision makers. This means arguments have to have a pedagogical value (aka: why is it good to be discussing this) on top of the claim-reason-impact set. The obvious implication is that if an argument hurts the game (is unfair) or doesn’t contribute to the decision making skills of the students in round, I am easily persuaded to discard it. To put this in translatable terms for y’all trying to pref me, or debating in front of me next round: if an argument is horseshit, it is sufficient to point out that it is horseshit, and why it is horseshit, in order for me to discard it. The other team may then make arguments about why their argument is not actually horseshit. I will try my best to keep a running list of horseshit at the bottom of this wiki, if you have any questions please inquire before the round. There is nothing you can say in front of me that is an auto-loss. I believe part of training well informed decision makers, is to train people who are open to question any and every assumption they have (I will hold myself to the same standard). This means reading patriarchy good, death good, spark, and other nonsense is permissible. If you can’t beat a stupid argument, you probably deserve to lose. Consequently everyone deserves an equal chance to defend themselves and their arguments. This means you get to defend patriarchy good, or timecube, or whatever other nonsense you want to defend. On a more important note ETHICS VIOLATIONS are just really powerful theory arguments. I refuse to drop a team because they have been accused of an ethics violation. This results in a proliferation of the label: ethics violation, and artificially inflates the value of the concept destroying its persuasiveness. While I believe card clipping is reprehensible, I also do believe that people allegedly clipping cards deserve a chance to defend themselves, just as against any other theory argument. Similarly I think altering evidence is also reprehensible (it doesn’t matter if you altered it respectfully [aka eliminating gendered language, changing human to humyn, women to womyn, etc…] however I do believe that simply proving that someone altered evidence, or clipped a card is insufficient. As debaters you should be able to debate the merits and demerits of clipping cards and compare those for me as a perceptually objective judge to evaluate. This leads me to my next belief: truth over tech. Tech over truth framework encourages a proliferation of horseshit (see below) that diminishes the educational value of debate (see first belief). Intervention at some point or another is inevitable, I try to warn you in advance of where and how I am most likely to intervene, what you can do to avoid it, and how this intervention will implicate the rest of the debate. Some judges chose to intervene by excluding certain arguments (such as patriarchy good), I chose to intervene by preferring “true” arguments over techy arguments. Judge adaptation is also an acquired skill that good debaters will master This being said, I weigh dropped arguments heavier than answered arguments, and believe my role as a judge is to fairly adjudicate between the arguments teams made in the debate. For example just because it might be true that reading 5 conditional kritiks and 2 conditional counterplans skewed the 2acs strategy, if you drop that potential abuse is not a voter, and can’t point to an in round abuse scenario, chances are getting my ballot will be hard.

how I adjudicate debates
I believe in the theory of non-contradiction rather than offense defense. I believe “true” defense is conclusive, it doesn’t matter which piece of paper it was on. This means I will vote on presumption against an affirmative, if there is a compelling reason to do so in the debate. This is not to say however that I reject offense defense framing, rather that I think this is the most productive and equitable way to train effective and well informed decision makers. Comparative analysis is a great way to get my ballot and speaker points. Framing arguments are important as they establish the only predictable mechanism by which I weigh the debate - anything is fair game, however absent persuasive framing arguments you will probably end up with an arbitrary decision that may or may not fuck you over. Whichever team controls how I view the debate will probably have the upper hand when I'm weighing arguments. If it's not an argument (see above) I won't evaluate it (hint: things that aren't arguments include assertions, accusations, puns, your clothing, the sticker on the other teams laptop etc; while some of it might be really cool and entertaining best case scenario I might give or take speaks). If it is an argument I will compare it to your opponents argument that disagrees with yours, and decide the arguments relevance to the debate, relative truth value, and implication for my ballot based on the explanations given in round; absent such explanations these determinations will still be made you will just have less control over them. This means you should impact your arguments as well as explain them thoroughly. If no argument can be found that disagrees with yours (it could be on any sheet of paper) I will grant the argument whatever weight the quality of your explanation warrants (if you don't explain it it's probably not an argument, hence it won't be evaluated - sorry 5 word theory blips) I do believe in a TKO - that is if you think the other team made an error (double turn, dropped theory arg etc) that allows you to win the debate in less than 10 seconds you may opt for this. If you make a TKO argument in less than 10 seconds (if it's not an argument it doesn't count) you and your partner will automatically win with 30 speaks. If you are wrong about a TKO you will lose and your opponents will get 30 speaks each.

style
Speed is arguments successfully articulated per minute, not words per minute. I do flow every argument I hear/see/feel you articulate (see above for what an argument is). I will flow every argument I hear/see/feel your opponent articulate as well (it's prob really hard to convince me to stop flowing). I do prefer to physically be left out of debates, I also have a strong preference for professionalism; that is I prefer people stay fully clothed, speak in a manner appropriate for academic spaces (up to your interpretation within reasonable limits), and discuss topics relevant to training well informed decision makers. I will not leave the debate, auto drop someone, yell at your coach etc if I feel uncomfortable. I will try to be an adult and deal with my uncomfortableness/insecurities etc independent of the debate and I expect competitors to do the same - the alternative is a race to the bottom where teams look for stuff to lose their shit over and to be honest I'm not sure I want to be the one adjudicating one of those debates.

horseshit
I'm open to listen - but winning on these is probably an uphill battle How I like horse shit to be handled: 1.point out it’s horseshit and why “baudrillard is dum, because it is self referential, incoherent, and makes it impossible for us to win, since it is impossible to logically argue against something illogical. Logical argumentation is a portable skill” would be an appropriate form of an argument 2. make some of your regular arguments you’d make against it just in case it turns out not to be horseshit Baudrillard Bataille Deleuze and Guattari Consult Chuck Norris Consult Ashtar “Funditionality” "Time doesn't exist" Time Cube Patriarchy good Death good (however death-not-necessarily-bad is not) Racism good (excludes malthus) Spark Idso et al Etc (to be expanded as I judge)