Quinn.+David

I was a debater at Apple Valley for 4 years and I graduated in 2012. I am currently attending the University of Minnesota and am majoring in Political Science and Philosophy.


 * Speed:** I am not crazy about speed. I would suggest slowing down a bit for rounds that I am judging. I will say "clear" if I am unable to understand you, but I will only do it two or three times before I just stop flowing.


 * Theory:** I am not a fan of theory debates, and think that often that it just ends up distracting the round from actually addressing the topic. I will vote on theory if there is a real substantive abuse, and the debater gives me a clear reason for why that abuse is a reason to drop their opponent. If that analysis is not made I will default to dropping the argument (assuming the debater wins the theory shell). If I think that a theory shell is unwarranted or unreasonable I will not vote on it no matter how well it is extended. So if you decide to go all in on theory you had better be sure that your interpretation is a good one.


 * Arguments I will NOT vote on: **I do not vote on presumption arguments, no matter how well justified. You need actual offense for me to vote for you. I will not vote on any philosophy/argument that supports offensive or flat out wrong viewpoints (ex. an argument justifying racism or murder). I will not vote on any a priori argument that argues that the resolution definitionally affirms/negates or that argues that there is no way to evaluate the resolutional question. Specifically I will not vote on skepticism or determinism. I would suggest not trying to convince me that these philosophies are good because unless you are the most persuasive human alive you will not change my mind.


 * Framework and framework debate:** I am not picky on how you structure your framework (value/criterion, single standard, burden structure, etc), but it needs to create some kind of clear mechanism that allows me to evaluate impacts from both sides of the resolution. When you are arguing framework please do more than just giving a blippy reason for why your standard precludes your opponent's in some way. I like to see arguments that actually explain how one standard is a better weighing mechanism for the round, or is justified by a stronger ethical theory, etc. It is important that a standard is supported by an ultimately EXTENDED justification/analysis that gives me a reason to prefer one framework over another. I do not want to have to add my own analysis after the round to the framework debate in order to make my decision. Also, if you are going to engage in a debate over the value you better have a reason for why you opponent's criterion cannot link into your value. Otherwise there is no reason to engage in the debate. Finally, simply winning your framework is NOT a reason to vote for you. You must also have some extended offense that links to that framework.


 * Things I like:** I specifically enjoy util arguments, Rawlsian arguments (if made well) and am generally ok with deontological theories. I will enjoy and happily vote on other types of arguments as well as long as they are well explained. Please do not assume that I am familiar with the author that you are reading. I am fine with arguments that approach the topic on a general level and those that examine a more specific aspect of the resolution (plans, counterplans, DA's). If you are running a plan just be sure that it is not so specific that it becomes abusive. I am also fine with K's as long as the K is well warranted. Whatever your argument is I need clear and detailed extensions that are clearly impacted back to your framework. Just saying extend is not enough. Also I like seeing clear and specific signposting. Please do not just say the card name because I may have missed it/heard a different name. It is best to also signal where on the flow it is (contention, sub-point, etc.)


 * Speaker points:** I assign speaker points based on the intelligence that you show in the arguments you make, and the way that you structure your rebuttals, the clarity with which you speak, and you ability to maintain a professional demeanor throughout the round. A spirited debate is a plus, but if you become too aggressive and make the debate a hostile one I will dock speaker points.

If there is any issue that I have not addressed you can ask me by emailing me at quinndavid94@gmail.com or asking by before the round. If you are asking me before the round please have specific questions, and try to keep it brief.