Socha,+Ryan

I did three years of policy followed by one year of LD in high school, graduating in 2012. This was in South Dakota (Watertown), where conservative judging styles are the norm. I'm more progressive than most judges from that area, but I do believe the national circuit has its occasional excesses. I am a games player by default. I view debate as a contest of ideas, so almost no ideas are barred from the round under my paradigm. This includes nontraditional or untopical cases, all varieties of kritiks and framework arguments, and even offensive or horribly stupid arguments, although you shouldn't read those anyway. I love seeing original and creative arguments, but argumentation's raw quality is paramount.

There are three types of arguments that I'll consciously intervene against: 1. An argument has to meet my threshold for what counts as a warrant. Ironically, many debaters seem to not know what an argument is. Even at the supposed upper-echelons of competency, i t is not uncommon for rounds include arguments so bad that direct intervention is necessary. It's absurd that this is true, but it's true nonetheless. Sorry. If you say something like "uniqueness flows affirmative because the sky is blue and Obama is reptilian", that is just a random string of words featuring the word "because" to me, not an actual argument, so I probably won't even bother flowing it. The same holds true even if your rhetoric is much prettier than that. 2. I won't vote on "hidden voter" arguments, or any other similar cheapshots. These hurt education and also happen to be moderately evil. I just will ignore them by default, but if someone sees one then decides to read an RVI they could very well end up winning because of it. An argument counts as a "cheapshot" if it's either very short or intentionally misleading, and yet also will have a substantial impact on the round. Anything that doesn't rely on subterfuge is legitimate. LD debaters especially should keep this aspect of my paradigm in mind, because LD is plagued with ugly exploitative theory. I am willing to blatantly intervene and ruin your entire strategy just for the sake of this principle, therefore I recommend that if you're uncertain about an argument you err towards integrity. 3. If a debater successfully wins in-round that a certain type of intervention (eg against racism, ableism, theory, ugly neckties) is justified, I'll do whatever that debater argues. Other than that, nothing is off limits. I will do my best to prevent any of my unpredictable prior beliefs from impacting the round.

Nonetheless, biased judging is inevitable.

In terms of my philosophy of debate, I'm probably somewhat biased towards the affirmative team, moreso in LD than policy. Partly this is because I prefer specific arguments to generic ones. I find generic counterplans distasteful both substantively and theoretically; PICs are especially bad. I think explicitly weighing arguments' merits against each other is crucial to good debate. I do sometimes use the offense defense paradigm when the stakes are dire, but you should probably assume I will not use it unless forced to by an actual explanation of its utility, ideally perhaps featuring a warrant, if you feel up to such a burdensome task. Finally, I'm inclined to be much more lenient towards debaters that strike me as talented. If you are competent overall, you might get away with mistakes that a different debater wouldn't be able to. I don't exactly endorse this bias, but have a hard time overcoming it nonetheless. Might as well be transparent about it.

At the object level of argumentation, I find naturalistic philosophy persuasive and have strong utilitarian intuitions. I have interests in psychology, government, and economics, so I understand arguments related to those relatively easily. Unfortunately, I have more difficulty understanding complex mathematics, statistics, and the sciences - my knowledge of chemistry in particular is atrocious. I'm familiar with many of the basic popular recurring arguments on policy and LD circuits, but I'm not well read in some of the more advanced kritik arguments, which can lose me entirely - I'm not convinced this is entirely my fault, as sometimes postmodernism is just stupid. I am a big fan of policy debate as an activity, and so cases which criticize the debate community and its norms might face an uphill battle in front of me. Similarly, although I like the idea that framework itself should be up to debate, more traditional approaches like requiring a plan text probably have an edge in close rounds.

**I rarely ever call for cards, and can sometimes have difficulty understanding spreading.** My comprehension varies, but very few people seem to enunciate enough to make me happy. You'll probably have to slow down to some extent, and I'm genuinely regretful of that. In my defense, many judges seem to call for cards and reconstruct the debate ex post facto, rather than admit when they're unable to understand debaters. I am not one of these judges; I prefer being transparent about my limitations to faking competence when flowing only to write flawed RFDs at the round's end. I find the continued existence of such poor judging practices baffling, and the further fact that they're not just extant but prevalent is abominable.

As far as speaker points go, I want to be entertained, but sheer competency is what I find most entertaining. Fallacies are probably inevitable, but egregious ones may be punished with lower points. Lying about your opponent's arguments is rude and stupid, so don't even think about it, even if you're the 2AR it's just an inexcusably unethical practice. Some debaters are confident to the point of arrogance, if this describes you I ask that you at least try to be subtle about it. Gish-gallopers are terrible. I dislike most mean jokes about politics, even those with "deserving" targets. I like most mean jokes about Public Forum, because I am a hypocrite and they are funny. Finally, it might just be the games player in me, but I have this crazy notion inside my head that it's important for us to have fun. Debaters who talk amicably with their opponents and are clearly enjoying themselves will likely receive bonus points, more helpful RFDs, or even an additional smidgen of judge bias in future rounds. Let's make debate a race to the top, not the bottom, okay?