Lind,+David

Background: I'm a class of 2019 math major at University of Chicago. Debated locally for 4 years and circuit for 3. My school didn't go to too many circuit tournaments but I'm fine with technical debate.

Overview: I try to be as tab as possible and default to evaluating the resolution under truth testing. I'll only disregard an argument on face if its blatantly offensive, but aside from that I'm willing to vote off anything with a warrant. However, like all judges, there are some types of debate I'm more experienced with evaluating than others. I consider myself best with framework and theory debates, and worst with util heavy plan debate and Ks. This shouldn't change what types of strategies you run in front of me, but if you're running a kritikal aff err on the side of overexplaining. I give fairly high speaks. For specific questions see the sections below or email me at dlind@uchicago.edu. All my default paradigmatic preferences such as truth testing and competing interps can be overridden fairly easily.

Speaker Points: I recognize how easy it is to have your seeding dropped by just one judge who gives low speaks. As such, I try to be fairly generous with my speaker points. Unless you are outright offensive or argue with me after the round your speaks should never be below 27.5 regardless of how good a debater you are. Average 28.5-29. Speaks between 29.5 and 30 means I think you should break.

Extensions: All arguments must be extended, but I have a fairly low threshold for what counts as an extension. If the argument was conceded your extension shouldn't be more than 1 sentence. If it wasn't conceded your extension should be 1-3 sentences depending on how many arguments they put against it. Aside from extensions I expect >15 seconds of crystallization done at the end of your 2A or 2N just to give me a clear ballot story.

Speed: I was fine with flowing almost all speed when I debated. I've been out of practice for a while though so please start slow and work up to your top speed. Slow down on author names and tags. I'll yell clear if I absolutely can't follow you. If I missed a warrant in a card I have no problem calling for it after round. How often I have to say clear will not affect your speaks.

Theory: Default to competing interps, drop the debater, and RVIs. Under competing interps if the debater responding to theory does not explicitly articulate a counter interpretation I assume their counter interp is just the opposite of the interp ("Debaters must have one necessary and sufficient burden" becomes "Debaters may have more than one necessary or sufficient burdens"). If you're running reasonability please give me a clear bright line for what is reasonable and what isn't. I'll vote off frivolous theory but running disclosure or other out of round theory will probably knock your speaks down by .5 points unless your opponent was being deliberately abusive before the round. Meta theory is cool. Run it if you can, especially when responding to frivolous theory or unlabeled theory spikes.

Framework: This is what I debated most heavily in high school and is my favorite kind of debate. My pet peeve is debaters saying things like "my ontology" or "my epistemology"--don't do this. When comparing frameworks be very explicit in why yours comes before theirs. Just extending an "ontology first" card over their "epistemology first" card doesn't really clarify anything for me. If you're running a fairly well known author don't misrepresent their arguments.

Plans/CPs: I prefer plans that defend a specific type of implementation of the resolution, not plans that spec down to a certain case where the resolution is applicable. I think the theoretical objections against the latter are pretty strong, but I'll won't discount these plans on face. I really like counterplans with strong philosophical justifications. For util heavy plan debate please be very very explicit with the impact calculus as this is probably what I'm worst at evaluating.

Ks: I'm fairly familiar with Foucault, Nietzsche, Marx, and Heidegger and have cursory familiarity with almost all other authors commonly run. That said, just because I know what DnG mean when they say "rhizomatic" doesn't mean your opponent will. Please define all author specific jargon even if the definition is only 1 sentence. To borrow a term from Foucault, don't practice the method of "obscurantisme terroriste". Most root cause arguments are really bad especially that one card that says "capitalism is the root cause of everything bad because the bourgeoisie benefit from creating divisions among the lower classes". I feel like lots of K debates quickly become a race to the critical bottom which kind of misses out on the many arguments analytic philosophers have launched against critical theorists. If you can successfully defend an analytic framework against an opponent running a K you'll get pretty high speaks from me. If you want my opinion on what analytic arguments work best against common Ks email me or ask me after round.

Pre-fiat arguments: I'm fine with whatever ROTB arguments or kritikal affs you want to run. However, I think the debate on how exactly pre fiat arguments should function is really underdeveloped right now. I would like debaters on both sides to more directly engage both how pre-fiat impacts interact with theory and the real world truth status of in-round arguments. If you can do one of those much better than your opponent you will probably get my ballot.

Final notes: Questions after the round are supposed to make you a better debater. I welcome questions like "what do you think I could have done better with my 1N strat?" or "what should I have done on this argument?". However, if it becomes clear that you're arguing with me after the round just because you thought you deserved to win you will get pretty low speaks. This extends to your coach arguing with me as well. Also, if you're much better than your opponent and could easily win on substance but instead decide to run pointless theory or Ks you should expect a low point win. Debate is supposed to be fun for both debaters!