Shane,+Jonathan+(CX)

Updated: 2/20/10

Jonathan Shane Taravella/Pope HS 09 Georgia State 13

i was an ld/pf debater in high school and i do college policy at gsu right now. i can follow along with just about any speed, but clarity is important. im not what youd call a 'highly experienced' debater, but i do my best and i consider myself relatively knowledgable about most concepts in debate so you shouldnt worry about debating over my head. i dont necessarily prefer any style of debate over another. When evaluating link/impact debates, i judge both the number and quality of the warrants. ultimatley, i vote on the MTP of impacts (magnitude/timeframe/probability). Here's what that means for me:

magnitude - not necessarily 'number of deaths' but rather importance. no value to life may be more important than a nuclear war if the kritik convinces me. probability - i like when the impact calc in the 2nr/2ar gives me relative percentages for how likely your impact is vs. theirs. just because they dropped your impact doesnt mean i weigh it as 100% timeframe - that kinda speaks for itself

Here are some other thoughts on debate in general:

-risk/probability is drastically underrated in debate. often, the 2nr/2ar will spend more time talking about the timeframe and magnitude of their impacts than the probability that they will occur and that makes for a very shallow debate round. convince me your econ collapse is more likely than their global nuclear extinction and i can vote for you.

-everything should have some sort of impact analysis clearly illustrated. theory/t doesnt always come down to a huge impact debate, but that doest mean "subpoint d, vote neg on fairness, education and jurisdiction. next flow" is apporpriate. ultimatley, the final evaluation i will do after the round is MTP, so keep that in mind. K impacts are more difficult to quanitify against policy impacts, therefore, both sides should spend alot of time on the impact analysis if you plan on winning the debate at that level.

-i wont say that i lean neg on theory like most judges do, but i will say that most aff theory args are pretty ridiculous. i have heard some persuasive condo bad debates, but they usually seem to be little more than a time suck. alot of theories are reasons to drop the arg not the team unless you display CLEAR inround abuse or draw a connection between potential abuse and future rounds. t comes down to reasonability vs. comp interps usually and thats the way it should be.

-i dont think k impacts are necessarily more important than policy impacts, even though theyre often assumed to be by most k debaters. if 'no value to life' or 'error rep' are more important than econ collapse or nuclear war, explain why

-too many counterplans pass as competitive without actually being exclusive with the plan. perm do the cp, or perm do both often solves despite the negs claims. i wont name any particulars so as to not disuade you from running a specific cp or convince the aff to be a douche about it, but it should be noted that i like competition to be spelt out in the 1nc shell unless the cp is CLEARLY competitive.

-cursing is sweet. when in doubt, i vote for the team that curses more.

-the point above is only half true

speaker points: as a general rule, i start from 27 and work my way up and down. if thats too low, i apologize, but it makes sense to me. my evlauation of speaks is based on content of your arguments, your participation in the round (especially if youre a 1a/1n), your handling of cx on both sides and your speed/clarity.

i welcome questions before the round and almost always disclose afterwards (unless the tournament directors tell me otherwise).