Blum,+Evan


 * REVISION: I am now coaching and judging both LD and PF Debate. While the technical and structural aspects of Lincoln-Douglas are not present in PF; I still hold the arguments made in PF rounds to the standards outlined below. 1)Tell me why your world is preferable (set up some standard). 2)Clearly link to the resolution. 3) Include and explain deep warrants for your contentions. 4) Extend your impacts back to the standard you think I should judge the round by.**


 * -See below for details about speed, clash, philosophies, and technical arguments (Plans, CPs, DisAds, and more)-**
 * _____**

Welcome to my page,

I am a graduate of Barrington High School where I debated for four years. I competed in local, regional, and national tournaments often and gained enough experience to place 3rd at Harvard as a sophomore. I also attended NSD for two years and broke at the NSD tournament. I currently attend American University and participate on the Parliamentary Debate Team there. I am a flow judge, but have different standards for different types of argumentation. So lets get right down to the point...

Overview:

I absolutely do not have any arguments that I will not vote for. Feel free to run genocide good arguments, anarchy good, ebola good, and anything you can think of as long as it is relevant and you have the evidence to back it up. I am a huge fan of debaters running non-stock, sometimes even counter-intuitive, arguments as long as they are well warranted, clearly link, and are well extended. **Stock arguments are stock for a reason**. If you are thinking of running one of those cases be sure it and your presentation meet those standards or I will not find it a compelling reason to vote for you. A value or burden structure in cases is fine with me as long as there are clear impacts back to whatever the standard is.

Phil:

I am well versed in philosophy and philosophical debate. This is where smart, non-stock arguments can really shine. Use whatever philosophy you want to create the standards by which I should judge the debate, but again explain it well and then extend it consistently. You can run meta-ethics. I will not intervene in my decision if you did not represent your philosophy accurately, because it is the opponent's job to dismantle your argument. However, if you don't understand the philosophy you are using in round, it is usually plainly evident, and things go down hill quickly anyway. **Take Away**: Really learn the philosophy if you want to run it in front of me.

Clash:

One of the things I absolutely hate in LD is that sometimes there are rounds where two ships are passing in the night. By that I mean there is no clash. Fighting or agreeing upon a standard does me no good if I cannot clearly weigh arguments against each other in relation to the standard. Anyone who debates in front of me should never just extend their arguments and say that their opponent's arguments are stupid, or just fail to address them at all. I want to see comparative analysis between arguments, especially the warrants and impacts. The credibility of evidence is important but should be called into question as a last resort. The fact that someone is not qualified to speak about something does not mean they cannot make an argument with a compelling warrant.

Speed:

I am fine with speed, but as most judges will say often times debaters are unclear when they speed. If you are unclear I will yell CLEAR. I will do this only twice, if you continue to read in a manner that makes what you are saying unclear I will flow only what I can hear, which may exclude some of your arguments on the flow. If you are clear and you speed; there will be no problem.

Theory:

I will absolutely vote on theory if there is real abuse in the round and if the shell is warranted and extended. I will also vote on RVIs because they are essential to checking abusive theory, but again they have to be well warranted and extended. In cases of potential abuse I need you to tell me why that potential abuse is so bad it warrants dropping the argument or the debater. I will default to dropping the argument if the impact of the theory is not made and extended. I believe theory is meant to check practices which are abusive and which may be repeated and replicated by debaters in an effort to win. Therefore since both dropping the argument and the debater stops that abusive argument from being successful and therefore its replication, I will need a reason why dropping the debater is preferable. Meta-theory is something I am unlikely to vote on but if your argument is especially compelling then I will.

Policy Arguments:

I will evaluate plans, CPs, DisAds, PICs, and K's but they must be well warranted and extended. Also because of the nature of these arguments I hold them to a higher standard of analysis. If you run a policy argument I want you to use a lot of comparative analysis in your arguments and I want warranted justifications why I should prefer your arguments in that analysis. Run these arguments with class; do not just sit there and read card after card. Later in round, I will expect you to delve into the deep warrants.


 * Take Away**: Debate, whether technical or philosophical, is actually a verbal chess match. The best prepared and the best strategists often end up winning rounds. Really see your case, and your opponents case on the flow. Figure out which collection of offense and defense is most likely to let you win the round, and then go for it. Tell me how and why your arguments should eliminate theirs from the flow.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.