Rifkin,+Nate

I calls 'em as I sees 'em.



Now that I've ensured I never see any round that isn't in the lowest possible bracket, here's a more thorough explanation of how I see's 'em.

A special note on the current LD topic (domestic violence): Don't be a jerk. This is almost certainly a sensitive issue for people at every tournament you attend, and being obnoxious or offensive will definitely result in me tanking your speaks and could result in me dropping you if you say something truly atrocious.

I debated in both PF and LD for Upper Dublin for two years and periodically judge both types of debate, primarily for Upper Dublin, though I don't judge enough to have a huge familiarity with any given topic. I competed at most of the larger Northeast tournaments, breaking at PA states, Columbia, Yale, and Cat Nats. I currently compete in American Parliamentary debate for Middlebury College having graduated from Upper Dublin in 2011.

I haven't actively stayed involved with LD since I graduated so while I'm philosophically fine with virtually any position (with the exception of racist or sexist positions) you'll likely need to spend more time explaining how it should impact my ballot and how it functions in the round than you would with a normal judge. Additionally, even when I understand how the argument normally functions, I prefer that you explain it since your opponent might not understand it and it not explaining things encourages lazy debate. For instance, don't just say education as the voter for a theory shell, explain why education is a sufficient reason to drop a debater.

I try to be as much of a blank slate as I can, but I do go in to each round with my own particular biases and ways I tend to evaluate a round. For instance, I’ll default to a truth testing or comparative worlds paradigm depending on my understanding of the resolution, but if you win that I should compare worlds when I would normally truth test, I’ll compare worlds. Generally, I’ll default to my own interpretation of debate norms, but if you win that I should do something differently, I’ll do that. Basically all of the preferences I've listed below are just that, preferences. While you likely shouldn't rate me highly if you want to go against all of my stated preferences, I have no problem voting against my own views on debate if you win that I should do so. For instance if this were a policy debate round and you win that you shouldn’t be held to stock issues, I would have no problem following you down the rabbit hole on that. Also, as a general rule, I love new and innovative cases or arguments. Running new and innovative cases will almost certainly raise your speaker points, though please give reasoned analysis as opposed to just reading a bunch of dense philosophical cards in the AC and clarifying them into a case in the 1AR. I'll ding your speaker points for that and will potentially scratch them off my flow as new arguments if your opponent wants to make that argument.

Two things that I strongly dislike (I'm still willing to vote off of them, I just really don't care for them): I absolutely despise the Value/Value Criterion structure that predominates LD and would love to be given an alternate way of deciding the round or at least more thoroughly warranted value/value criterion analysis. Great clash in the V/VC will make me a happier judge and cause me to give higher speaker points. Additionally, I don't really care for boring utilitarian analysis. Comparing worlds in general isn't my favorite type of round to judge, though if the debaters want to do that, I'm ultimately here for them and will go along with their utilitarian analysis. That said, I generally preferred a truth testing paradigm as a debater and imagine that I'll prefer it as a judge as well.

Speed:

I have no inherent problem with speed, but I’m not very good at flowing it. I can handle around 300 wpm, but much more than that and I’ll probably miss stuff. If you’re going too fast, I’ll very visibly stop flowing to try and let you know that I can’t follow you any more. You should be prepared to pass the pages of your case to your opponent as you read it in order to let him see the full cards or catch anything he or she missed, especially if you’re going to spread.

Cards:

I’ll call cards if there’s a dispute about the card’s meaning. I’ll also call cards if I missed the card, but both you and your opponent got the full meaning. To be honest, I’m not a huge fan of debates that come down to five different reasons to prefer your cards. I like analytics and arguments that challenge the impact of the card or the link chain getting you to the card or something like that rather than that your card is marginally more credible (though if it’s egregious and the card is being misrepresented or is factually incorrect, go with that). If you want to have a debate about why your card is better, read the year, full author name, and the author's qualifications when you read the card. Also, slow down for cites.

Theory:

In general, I'm fine with legitimate theory. There’s no real bright line for what’s legitimate and what isn’t, just an, “I know it when I see it,” type thing. I'm not a huge fan of having a theory debate for the sake of a theory debate though, but if there's clear abuse, go for it. I’ll vote on theory I feel is legitimate but for the most part, as long as your opponent keeps challenging the bs theory run for the sake of playing the theory game, I probably won’t vote on it. If your opponent drops the bs theory and you argue successfully that it’s an a priori, I’ll pick you up on that. I'm also totally fine with RVI's as long as you explain how they should function in the round and why they're warranted here.

CX:

I like entertaining CX’s. That doesn’t mean you should be rude, but gentle ribbing of your opponent’s case (but not your opponent) is fine and appreciated. This won’t influence how I vote (unless you somehow win that my ballot is a measure of joke telling ability) but will increase your speaks. I won't flow your CX, so bring it up in a future speech if you want the concessions you got to count. I'm not a huge fan of flex prep and likely won't allow it unless Tab tells me to do so. I prefer debaters to stand during CX because I think it encourages focus on the CX itself rather than prep that could occur during CX, but if the debaters would rather sit, I'll live.

Speaker points:

I try to average a 26.5 with a scale ranging from 24-29.5 with sheer brilliance and utter incompetence causing me to give above or below that. I likely won’t go below a 24 unless you kick a puppy or use very little of your speaking time (not that the two are synonymous). Below is the scale I'll try to judge off of, but if Tab provides judges with a different scale they want them to use, I'll use that instead.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 13px;">29.5: Should win tournament <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 13px;">29: Deep outrounds <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 13px;">28: Should break <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 13px;">27: Good debater, might break <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 13px;">26.5: Average <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 13px;">25: Below average <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 13px;">24: Needs work

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 13px;">I'll disclose wins, losses, and speaker points with an RFD after each round and answer any questions that the debaters might have after I've submitted my ballot. If there aren't runners for the ballots, find me in GA and I'll disclose.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 13px;">If you have any other questions, feel free to ask!