You,+Josh

Last updated 10/18/17

Conflicts: Apple Valley

I competed in LD at Lakeville North (MN) from 2009-2013 and coached LD at Apple Valley for four seasons from 2013-2017. I am not coaching this year and judging very rarely, so I won't be familiar with the cutting edge of the LD meta.

This is pretty long; if you're scrambling to finish prefs just read the overview and maybe the first bullet point in each of the other sections- they are listed roughly in order of importance.

In the past I spent a lot of time complaining about bad Ks while still voting for them. To address this problem I'm going to punish negs more harshly for having nebulous ROBs and put less of a burden on the aff to explain how the net benefit to the perm or whatever matters under the ROB. I will also dispense some free advice:
 * 2017/2018 update: **

1. I like when debaters attack the K from the right. I don't know why debaters seem so afraid of defending liberalism, capitalism, US heg, etc. 2. It is hard to beat a K if you concede the links, impacts, and alt solvency (i.e. if you just go for perm and framework). Go hard against at least one. 3. Frivolous Ks are definitely a thing, just like frivolous theory (indeed, theory is just a subset of kritiks, though not vice versa). A persuasive effort to delink from a K with nebulous or tenuous links will count as terminal defense, just like a good I-meet is terminal defense against theory.

I am not anti-K //per se//, I have seen many good Ks and watched good critical rounds. But there is something about the lack of clarity and originality in critical debates that has dragged down the quality of many LD rounds in the past couple of years, in my view.

 **Overview:**
 * I expect you to adapt to your opponent as well as to me, in terms of both speed and content. Don't read anything unless you can reasonably expect all three participants in the round to understand it.
 * In general, I would like to hear a smart, substantive debate about the resolution that utilizes the topic lit. This could mean policy args, non-squirrelly philosophical positions, or Ks with specific links. I usually don't like judging theory, tricks, performance, or generic Ks as much. But don't treat these as absolute rules.
 * I reserve the right to evaluate arguments based on what the warrant justifies instead of what you claim. But I'll try to be charitable, especially if they're conceded.
 * I dislike squirrelly/tricky arguments- arguments that no reasonable person would find convincing outside debate. To be clear, I like creativity and even weird/idiosyncratic arguments, but I don't like it when debaters try to abuse tab judging to justify obviously stupid conclusions.

 **Speed:**
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> Speed is fine but I have a __high threshold for clarity__. You are not as clear as you think you are. I'll yell clear, louder, etc. when necessary, but after two times I'll start docking speaks and ignoring arguments I didn't catch. 'Clear' is my go-to if I can't diagnose why I can't understand you.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">I won't look at speech docs before the end of the round.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Please slow down for tags, author names, advocacy texts, short analytics, and any unusually complex arguments. Using voice inflection to highlight key words and sentence structure is also highly recommended.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> **Theory:**
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">I'll vote on theory if you win it. But __I'd rather not hear theory most of the time__, so if I think your shell is frivolous you'll get lower speaks and I'll have a low threshold for responses to it. This also applies to ACs that are loaded with spikes/paragraph theory.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">I am __very bad at flowing and understanding theory__. You should err heavily on the side of over-explaining arguments, because otherwise I will probably be very confused at the end of the round. This is especially true with theory dumps; if I’m stuck trying to compare 20 theory blips on either side my decision will be pretty arbitrary.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; line-height: 20px;">Theory defaults: competing interps (though I'm sympathetic to reasonability), drop the argument (but drop the debater for theory that indicts an advocacy), no RVI, fairness and education are important.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; line-height: 20px;">I'm not really a fan of the RVI despite not liking theory. If you can beat back a frivolous theory shell quickly I would prefer you go back to substance.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; line-height: 20px;">I will not vote for an RVI that is new in the 2AR. Obviously, I won't vote for new 2AR theory either.
 * "Competing interps" does not imply "you need an explicit counter-interp or you automatically lose theory." If it is fairly obvious what the implicit counter-interp then I will use that.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">I'm fine with meta-theory but I'm skeptical that it's a gateway issue to regular theory.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> **Kritiks/critical stuff:**
 * //<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.5;">Please //explain how your role of the ballot actually works. A short one-sentence tag followed by a Giroux card is not an adequate explanation. At minimum tell me what counts as an impact to the ROB and how to compare pre and post fiat impacts.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">I’m fine with Ks in principle but I think many critical arguments in LD suffer from inadequate explanations of content and function. I am not particularly familiar with the literature, so you should be able to explain your warrants without using jargon. More importantly, you should have warrants to begin with :).
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.5;">I will listen to performance and non-topical affs but you may face an uphill battle on framework.
 * Also please use precise language to describe what the impacts are and how you're solving for whatever you try to solve (note that using personal pronouns can obscure important details. If you say "I solve for X", who is doing the solving? You, in your speech act? Judges who vote the way you tell them to? The actor in your advocacy? Do you even tell me who that actor is?) I have judged a lot of very abstract K debates and I am not a fan.


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Policy arguments: **
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">I love good util/policy-style debate. However, I find bad util debates very annoying to judge since I often have to intervene to resolve them. If you want to avoid that, then develop and weigh your impacts. All util debates are implicitly math problems, treat them as such.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">I tend to discount poorly-justified big-stick impact scenarios (note: poorly-justified and low-probability are not quite synonymous. If you have a solid argument for why the plan has a 0.1% chance of causing nuclear war I'll happily vote for it. If your DA makes a ton of logical leaps based on sketchy evidence, maybe not). Also, concession does not imply 100% probability. I am not biased against extinction impacts but I also prefer smart arguments.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">I like plans that are reasonably balanced and representative of the topic lit. Unfortunately many recent LD topics have featured hyper-specific/unbalanced plans and I am pretty receptive to T in those cases.


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Counterplans: **
 * I really like good plan/CP debates and I think the neg should nearly always run a CP. As for theory, I am annoyed by lot of PICs (specific interps/counterinterps are good here) and strongly dislike agent CPs (they're all bad). I lean towards condo good.


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Framework/philosophy: **
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">I'm fine with philosophy-heavy cases as long as they're well explained. I like good framework debates but I prefer frameworks that allow for interesting contention-level debates (not saying you have to engage in the contention level). So please don't read stuff like polls or legal frameworks.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">I default to thinking that intuitively good/bad things really are good/bad. I appreciate good counterexamples/intuition pumps. Making your opponent's framework sound silly in cross-ex will help your speaks a lot.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">If the framework debate or the contention debate under the winning framework is very ambiguous, I default to accounting for moral uncertainty (a.k.a. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">[|ethical modesty] ). This default can be changed in both directions based on arguments made in round.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">I dislike theoretical (that is, debate theory) framework justifications.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> **Speaker points:**
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">You'll get higher speaks for making good arguments, being strategic, reading original, well-researched positions, explaining argument content and function clearly, and sounding persuasive.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">You'll get lower speaks for being unclear or confusing, not engaging with the relevant topical/philosophical literature, reading frivolous theory, avoiding clash, and being a jerk.
 * My average is around 28.


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Other: **
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">No flex prep (i.e. using cross-ex time to prep). Asking questions during prep is fine.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Please don't take an unreasonable amount of time to flash. I'll dock speaks if it's excessive and doesn't result from computer malfunction or something.