Hymson,+Eli

Eli Hymson University of Kansas

Hey folks. I attended Stoneman Douglas HS in Parkland, FL and debated LD for four years, reaching the TOC my senior year.

2015-2016 will be my third year judging and I am no longer coaching, so you should consider me fairly far removed from the debate world at this point. My paradigm is more or less unchanged, but it is highly unlikely that I will be familiar with whatever the cool new positions on the circuit are. Last year, many debaters read the language of the "Kritiks" section in this paradigm as license to break some really, really out-there positions that I am frankly not qualified to judge, many of which aligned with the more activist tradition, with which I am not very familiar. I read some weird stuff in my time, but some things are still beyond me. It would be dangerous to assume I know all of the vocabulary used by new-age social justice authors ("cis"/related terms and alternative gender pronouns especially), but I am excited to hear innovative positions as long as you're willing to explain on a more fundamental level what it is you defend and the language you use.

In general, I will accept whatever standard of evaluation is presented and justified by the debaters. However, just because I am paradigmatically open to all methods of evaluation doesn't mean I'm particularly competent at using the one you might want me to. I will try my best to be familiar enough with whatever strategic choices you make to evaluate them correctly, but no guarantees. The burden of explanation is on the debaters, and I am warning you now that I do not claim to be the most profoundly intellectual or well-read judge out there.

My view of debate emphasizes the value of education. This does not mean that I will automatically exclude your fairness voter if contested by an education one; it means I expect you to demonstrate a more-than-basic knowledge of your position and avoid intellectually bankrupt positions. If you decide not to comply, your speaks will probably suffer, but I won't vote you down because I didn't like something you did. If you're an experienced debater debating a novice, please make the round educational and inclusive for them. The jurisdiction of the judge involves preserving a fair and educational space for discussion. I like to think my interpretation of what types of "fairness" and "education" are important to debate is a rather inclusive one, which hopefully permits more substantive engagement with theory arguments when both substance and theory address issues of fairness/education.

Specifics:

1. **Speed-** I get bored easily. Being fast helps. Be loud. I'm comfortable with just about any speed so long as you're clear. There have been debaters who were too fast for me to flow. I have extremely high standards for clarity; I listen well and have a good ear for speed, but my writing speed can't keep up with your speaking speed. If you're clear enough for me to hear and understand the argument the first time it's read, then my less-than-stellar flowing won't be as much of an issue for you. I want to understand the content of your evidence without having to call for it after the round; making tags clear and mumbling cards irritates me. ENUNCIATE AUTHOR NAMES.

2. **Kritiks-** I was a K debater my senior year. Debate has devolved into largely empty and often irresponsible normative claims accompanied by one-sentence theory spikes and other similar arguments designed to exclude perfectly legitimate positions on the basis of marginal abuses of ground/strategy. Kritikal debate was my way of combating this trend and I did it with a lot of success. If you successfully execute a cap K, you have my respect for eternity (RIP Louis Paine). I'm a huge Nietzsche fan and know more about his work than any other area of "critical" philosophy used in debate. //__**CAVEAT TO RUNNING K'S IN FRONT OF ME:**__// I take critical debate and the value it has for debate very seriously. That said, the conclusions of some critical positions, just like traditional normative positions, can be dangerous when portrayed incorrectly. A disingenuous, poorly executed, ridiculous, or misrepresented kritik will upset me greatly. If you run Nietzsche to say that racially motivated violence and raping weak women or anything like it should be celebrated as an exercise of strength, you're doing it wrong and I will nuke the ever-loving hell out of your speaks. Because of how much I enjoy and value the literature, I want to see these positions presented in only the best ways. Do it well or don't do it at all. Don't assume that I'd rather vote for a mediocre K than an excellent practical reason or util position.

3. **Theory-** STOP. READING. STUPID. THEORY. I am beyond sick of it. Too many people are neglecting this section, so time to get more severe. Speaks will suffer. I am not very good at evaluating theory. I will look for every non-interventionist way to devolve to substance, including washing a theory debate too muddled or complex for me to adjudicate. That said, run it if you want. I understand high quality theory debates; it's the super close ones and the irresolvably shitty ones (which are more common) that inform my preferences on theory. Theory has a necessary place in debate, but the circumstances which "necessitate" it are much rarer than people think. I will know when you're running theory to waste time or intentionally divert the debate away from a substantive discussion you aren't prepared to win. Theory does not automatically come before critical/performance-based positions unless you do detailed analysis proving why it does. If there is clear abuse, demonstrate it, don't blow it out of proportion, and keep the discussion of theory-based impacts realistic and germane. I will evaluate turns to a theory shell without a competitive counterinterpretation. These can be either kritikal responses to theory that demonstrate how theory itself undermines fairness/education or counter standards that have clear weighing and clearly describe the benefits of doing what you did (or combinations of both, e.g. kritikal arguments phrased as theory standards). If you win this offense but lose whether you get an RVI, I will not vote on your responses.

4. **Policy-Style Debates**- I will reward creative util positions with high speaks. In these kinds of debates, I have no problem calling for evidence for whatever reason I want. This does not give you free reign to incomprehensibly blaze through politics disads because you assume I'll understand the argument. I appreciate unique and interesting util impacts and impact calculus. Not every util scenario needs to terminate in ridiculous extinction impacts. I find this kind of irritating.

5. **Framework-** I have extensive experience with all kinds of metaethical framework positions. A thorough and engaging framework debate will result in very high speaks. I know much more about analytic/continental philosophy than I know about politics, so these debates will probably be the clearest for me to evaluate. Something annoying I saw becoming more prevalent my senior year was the idea of a theoretically justified standard. I will not intervene against you for running such a standard, but please understand that I absolutely hate them and will have a very, very low threshold for accepting responses to the standard. Let me repeat: I absolutely hate them. The two types of these arguments I saw were affirmative framework choice and full theory shells in the AC saying why their ethical theory was best for fairness/education. As someone who spends a lot of time reading ethical philosophy, it almost makes me want to cry that people corrupt the discussion of ethics by involving the long-ago-poisoned debate concepts of fairness and education. If your ethical theory is as well-warranted as you say it is, you shouldn't have to hide behind theory spikes and incessant whining about "aff side bias" or "time skew". Win the framework debate. Framework debate introduces an intellectually rigorous layer of the debate unique to this event. I'm not an LD purist, but I do not appreciate watching ethics debate be destroyed by shitty theory.

6. **Skepticism/Responses To "Offensive" Positions-** Skepticism is fine. There are many diverse and cool ways to articulate moral skepticism that have yet to be explored and many more common ones that are still intellectually rigorous and interesting. If you like to read skep, try to make unique arguments for it. Wittgenstein's big book argument is awful, at least the way debaters run it. Claiming the universe doesn't exist is also not very cool or interesting. Do something weird, but sensible. Run skep stuff that attacks a diverse set of assumptions about ethical frameworks. In terms of responding to skep/other "offensive positions"... Unless you specifically construct a warranted voter and say that skepticism leads to us condoning normatively bad things, I will reject nothing on the grounds that it is offensive. You can't claim that skep is bad because skep denies the concept of goodness/badness. Your voter needs something more than "being a human before a debater". That means nothing.
 * I feel the need to update this and address an important subset of this issue for lack of clarity in my original statement. If your position permits sexual violence, racial violence, genocide, or anything of the sort and you concede that this is the case, I will not tolerate it. That said, it is the job of the debater against whom these arguments are made to describe to me why these statements warrant my intervention. I will do everything in my power to ensure that my threshold for accepting such an explanation is quite low. If you briefly complain "what they said is offensive, so vote them down because you're a human", I will reluctantly default to them since they did more thorough warranting for their claim/framework. However, if you make at least some kind of intelligent attempt to explicate what about their position is offensive and provide insight into what I would be justifying if I were to vote for it, I will likely be persuaded enough to at least drop their argument or hand them a loss if the violation is egregious enough.

7. **Spikes-** Slow the hell down. Blazing through 20 different spikes and expecting me to understand your extensions of them will get you nowhere. I hate these strategies. If you use spikes, make them fleshed out and maybe add in some words you'd normally take out so I have more time to experience the argument.

8. **Disclosure-** Under absolutely no circumstances will I vote for disclosure theory. You can convince me that disclosure is a positive norm for debate, but saying your opponent shouldn't be allowed to debate the round and be handed a loss because they didn't disclose is unacceptable. Debaters are not obligated to make it easier for other people to beat them, especially when I am aware that the person running theory is from a big school and the violator is from a small school. Unpredictability can be a beautiful thing. It is not my jurisdiction to evaluate anything that didn't occur directly in the round, and I further believe that links of omission to K's/theory are almost always ridiculous.

9. **Speaks-** Speaks are arbitrary. They are also a hyperinflated currency. You need to earn speaks in front of me; I worked very hard to earn my speaker awards and expect you to do the same. Even if your strategic decisions don't work out well, I will still independently reward you for clarity. Here's the model you should shoot for if you want a 30. __ 30: __ You did something unique/special that I feel enlightened for having listened to. You made a series of smart strategic decisions that maximized your efficiency and made things easy for me. The majority of your last rebuttal is on my ballot in the RFD. Your speaking is beautifully clear. Not only do I expect to see you in out rounds, but I'd probably be rooting for you if I wasn't required to be a disinterested voter. Something I hate- Debaters who scream/increase their volume to an abnormal level when making absurd arguments to make them seem more legitimate. It's just... It's ridiculous. If you have a speech impediment that you fear will impact your performance in-round, let me know privately ahead of time so that I don't punish you for a stutter or other impediment out of your control. I will be as understanding as possible.

If there's anything in here you have questions about, anything I left out, or any views you want to challenge, email me at eli.hymson@gmail.com. All unreasonable requests, insults, or complaints should be directed to cherymenthol@gmail.com. Feel free to ask about any of this before the round in case my views change between the first and second time you read this. Good luck, and have fun!