Beddow,+Andrew

History: 4 years at St. Ignatius High School ToC Circuit, debated variously as 2A and 2N.

__**Brief:**__ I try to be as tab as possible. I’m open to any argument or style of debate – that doesn’t mean I’m not naturally predisposed towards certain positions, but I’ll try to be as receptive as possible towards whatever arguments you decide to run.

__**Longer**__ I have a high bar for what constitutes an offensive (as in, ‘hurt feelings are a voter’, not as in offense-defense paradigm) argument, but not a high bar for what constitutes a bad one. I will not dismiss ‘genocide good’ out of hand just because one team cries over it. I try to approach the round as a blank slate, which means any position is potentially winnable in front of me. I have yet to find truly compelling reasons why racism or sexism might be good, but I will weigh whatever warrants you have as fairly as the other side’s. “Dumb” arguments like coercion, Rights Malthus, etc. may not be dumb after all – be sure to justify your position logically with claims and warrants, because I approach rounds a priori. I will avoid judge intervention as much as I can, and I will try to only analyze the round based on what the debaters themselves actually communicate. This puts my more at the “tech” side of a debate than the “truth” side, and I will privilege analysis over evidence in most cases.
 * Acceptable Arguments/Treatment of Arguments**

I think theory debates can be spectacular, but I will admit that theory and T were never my specialties in high school. As above, I will avoid biases whenever possible, but please note that I would almost always prefer a debate on substance to one on theory. Where framework is concerned, I’m completely open to judging a nontraditional debate round. I may be more comfortable with traditionally policy-oriented positions only because I am more familiar with that model of debate, but feel free to K the aff, neg, res, debate, etc.
 * Theory, Topicality and Framework**

I think terminal defense is a thing. A rarity, but a possibility. I still default to an offense-defense paradigm under most conditions and will very rarely assign 0 risk to an argument – I generally believe this form of risk-assessment arises when one team has accidentally read defense to their own position (a solvency deficit on case, for example, that happens to also take out the counterplan). So “try or die” logic can oftentimes be persuasive to me, but not across every issue.
 * The Peculiar Institutions – Terminal Defense and Perfcon**

Perfcon and stratskew just aren’t convincing arguments to me, generally. E.g. Neg reads Taoism, a disad (same impact as aff), and counterplan. I don’t see how this “perfcon” between the K and other ‘positions’ is damaging to the aff. The negative has only made three observations about the world, all of which could be conceivably true at the same time. I have always thought that, under these sorts of conditions, the K questions the desirability of resolving the harms of the 1AC, the disad questions the possibility of doing so, and the CP tests whether or not those harms are intrinsic to the aff. Any and all of these positions tests whether or not the plan is true as a normative statement. There may be cases where a perfcon voter makes more sense than others, so contextualize your abuse story, but saying “I had to read ‘life good’ AND defend how I save life” isn’t a really compelling abuse story, and I don’t view that as a contradiction. I tend to think that, if there ever were a real case of stratskew/perfcon, the aff could just concede it as a double turn (neg reads Schopenhauer death good and an extinction impacted disad; aff concedes both and now controls the direction of offense. These negative positions aren’t ‘contradictory’, because they could both be true. This isn’t an abuse story; it’s a story about a stupid neg strat).

As in the Theory, T, and Framework section, I will approach the round a priori. Generally debaters assume a consequentialist ethic in the course of their debate, but I could just as easily (okay, maybe not //just// as easily) be won over by, say, Nietzsche or Coercion. Impact framing and comparison are important, but I think they’re done almost universally very poorly.
 * Impact Framing and Comparison**


 * Golden Rule:**
 * R=P*M**
 * But mostly just M.**

Kidding, but “K debaters” will oftentimes just read a dictionary definition of deontology as though that means their structural violence impact suddenly outweighs everything (in that same vein, a lot of debaters say that poverty is worse than nuclear extinction, reason being a two-minute long narrative about how people suffer in poverty. I might be in the minority in thinking this argument is not a defense of a deontological ethic, but just a way of accessing higher risk in a consequentialist paradigm. The argument that “Such-and-such number of people die as a result of structural violence” somehow means structural violence is a d-rule and great power war is not has never made sense to me). That said, I could very easily be persuaded that, based on your defense of probability, a comparatively “smaller” impact like low-intensity conflict will outweigh an unlikely Russian war scenario, for example.

I don’t like to intervene in debates, but I also can’t really objectively judge a round where both sides have dropped one another’s arguments. Following the line-by-line may help you, or you may want a top-heavy impact overview if I can understand how this interacts with the line-by-line. But if there’s no real clash and nobody mops up the dropped arguments by the end of the debate, I’ll have to start filling in gaps on my own.

As above, I will analyze any argument. I like Ks. I like different types of Ks. That doesn’t mean I’m the best judge for your K, though. I’m well versed in //some// kritik literature, but not so much in other areas. Plan accordingly (alternatively, that means that if you can actually explain this to me in a way that makes sense/I learn something I didn’t know, you’re a pretty cool kid).
 * Kritiks**

I’ll reward people who give me something interesting to judge. Your debating should reflect your speaking ability, intelligence, efficiency, argument quality, knowledge of evidence (I like cutting cards. I think cutting cards is important. I will reward you if it seems like you know your stuff), personality (humor, ethics, and sportsmanship), and enjoyment of the round.
 * General Guide for High Speaks**

I’m fine with speed as long as you’re clear, I don’t take prep for flashing, I won’t tolerate stealing prep, and I will give disclosure and an oral critique unless restricted by the tournament guidelines. You don’t need to raise your hand to go to the restroom or get water either. Unless I don’t like you. Ask me if you need clarification at any point.
 * Dumb Stuff**

Tournament rules will override those set by debaters under all conditions, only because I’m a pansy who doesn’t want to fight the system. For all intents and purposes, though, the norms of the debate forum are up for the debaters to decide. You set up the framework through which I view the round and the standards by which I judge it. If that means the neg should get a 3nr, that gendered language should be punishable by death, or that the debaters should be able to consult the judge, that’s up for you to decide.
 * Rules of the Debate Forum**


 * UPDATE*** - Acceptable 1NCs will include a politics disad and a states counterplan, just as God intended.**