Paine,+Louis

Debate represents itself to me: frozen within the cartesian plain of western metaphysics and paralyzed with a hysterical impulse to eliminate suffering in vain such that "luciferation"--the ability auto-generate light as recognition which can stave us from dangers of darkness once exposed in the sewer. I am not cognizant of whatever normative debate cases or models are popular right now ( I will have never pretended to be). I can only say that from what saw in just a few rounds debate has lost its unpredictable component, turned into unwarranted calculations ( tightening that ever so sublimated latex grip like a glove, constantly imagining and justifying violence for the sake of capital while neglecting the underlying genocides it contributes to, displaced to far away places like Africa, or Jail, or Rehab, or the Psychiatrist's Office), alienated labor, a complicity with neither risking the status quo nor the socially constructed fabric( fiction ) of debate to discuss what the debater really feels matters. To me ld has a lot of debaters explaining their justifications for dehumanization, or for eliminating it ( you know, the excuse of "I thought it was the right thing for strategic purposes"---indicating either a. you falsely accept responsibility for a choice amongst forced paths though the logic of necessity which is tautological, and at best, lacks an in depth analysis into how necessity arises from contingency (historically unique and particular circumstances, that contribute to some anomaly or anachronism, a rupture of space to create universal liberation) or b. you appeal to the idea of taking orders from a higher power), but never engage in the "event" of the fearless substance of being and allows an engagement with the real, performing the real function that gives value to human worth And I guess that means that hope is to be given up in favor of heaven chance and a love of fate. Only beyond nothingness can we understand the minimal difference that defines the desires we subscribe to and channel them to wherever we want and finally love misery, since we choose them over and over again.

I have debated in 300+ rounds of LD and Policy through high school and college. I have seen 3ars, 3nrs, etc, and to be honest, I always empathize with the debaters who could risk their own loss for the sake of loving one's fate, affirming the space for life to breathe by rejecting the eco-friendly plastic cage of rational social asphyxiation --(betting on the necessity of winning and the contingency of it, I felt I debated the best when I was able to actualize the love of my possession over "having nothing to lose" (the idea that I am doubly affirming something truly alive, after it has died over and over again, not to be used a means to an end, but an end itself).

things that get you __**at least**__ 28-29 (these are generally the lows, I give 30's to encourage debaters to pursue the arguments that they feel are the most true) rather than adapting to what they think somebody has told them is what I want to hear. Put simply, it means debating such that I do not have to automatically default to some warrantless ( a-priori, burden, tautology, one sentence spike) claim that was extended just because I have good hearing and flow technique.


 * offense
 * warrants
 * extensions of warrants through both rebuttals and impacts
 * decision calculus (usually involving a standard or "value criterion")

Forcing my intervention by winning an argument is the best way I would describe getting my ballot, that means you can win with arguments I hate and arguments I love. I may sign the ballot, but I too feel alienated by the ruse of non-capitalistically interpellated education that the ballot reifies as a representation of some "calvinistic object that signifies our predetermined destiny to be great". Only an act that actually appeals to the logic of the judge can really make the signature happen, it would be naive to pretend that judges don't have argumentative styles they prefer, they default to when they feel that subjectivity, chaos, or outright hegemony are inevitable, and they almost always decide with these dispositions, by the way, its never inevitable, judges most of the time just give up.

That being said,

speed is fine, and is essential sometimes, I can flow any speed don't be a bully, i won't intervene during a round, but if you want to hear my decision, i reserve the right to express that decision with same love of fate that I give to you regarding your ability to argue any claim in front of me.

specifics to my ideological dispositions: i like nietzsche the most, but i enjoy baudrillard, zizek, heidegger, spanos, lacan, and derrida the most i hate ad-hominem claims, but if unrefuted, i will vote on potential author indicts try to make me engaged in the round, force me to want to make the right decision i hate capitalism, i am sympathetic to running the same argument on both sides of the resolution I like substantive (topic specific parts of the resolution too), don't feel like you have to run different arguments because I am in the room. most k debaters suck at winning the alt, but most affs suck at explaining why perming the alt solve the impact of the k, so k's might give you some extra reasonable doubt as to why I might be inclined to negate. pics, counterplans, da's, dancing, performance, narratives, ---all of it is acceptable and I will vote off of it if you win the argument.

Offense needs to be weighed extensively in the second rebuttals. That does not mean " i outweigh in term of timeframe because my impacts happen first", you must extend warrants and cross applications of them relating to your case, the round, and how they interact or preclude any other potential offense or defense. This does not mean you have to make the 2nd rebuttal a 'meta issue" ( a grand narrative of arguments, voting issues i called them when i debated), it merely means you explain why I ought to vote for your advocacy over another one, why I sign the ballot to signify "winner or master". To be honest, I don't like theory ( I think its a perfect example of capitalist pedagogy infecting the ability of subversive discourse to disrupt the constant circularity of sign exchange under capitalism), but I will vote on it, as long as you articulate why it means I should sign the ballot to signify that you are the "master" over some "meta debate issue". I am very open to criticisms of theory, topicality, ( policy debate calls these issues framework if you wanna make it more organized to prepare for my particular interests). Role of the ballot arguments are also important because even though I think my status as the "judge", (decision maker) arises out of either/or deadlock of the forced choice of "affirm/negate"(nihilism), since ballots are symbolic and material capital (that we unfortunately subscribe psychic energy to as fetish objects) it matters to me that debaters establish early what my role is, why that matters, and how their advocacy versus one's opponent interacts with my decision, and what my decision is always supposed to have meant, from the beginning of the debate to the end.

i really hate intervening, please don't drop multiple "pre-standards" or "vote aff or neg" arguments and please don't expect me to vote for you if you don't have a warrant that can be extended. Argument is fluid, unreal and crystalline for me, don't expect me to be able to assume because I know how to flow speed or something obscure that you can just latch onto an insignificant issue, and make up reasons as to why it is important later on. That doesn't mean I won't allow deductive/inductive impact claims to win debates--meaning you can go from the general to the particular and vice versa. \