Arnet,+Evan

Arnet, Evan

Affiliations:

Albuquerque Academy, Albuquerque NM

La Cueva HS, Albuquerque NM

In general, I describe myself as tab ras/ games, but with a very high reasonability burden. It is my belief that debaters should be allowed to have as much as they can defend. As long as I feel clued in as to the approaches of both teams (don't bring up obscure elements and strategies just expecting me to understand), and that the debate is being done in good faith I'll allow almost anything. I'm relatively unfamiliar with performative and other more non-traditional aspects of policy (much of my experience being in a conservative circuit), but not against them. If you would like to propose something especially controversial e.g. switching around speeches or alternative timing, please ask me first, but I will most likely be okay with it as long as both teams are on board. I do default to flowing (spread is fine), but can be persuaded to ignore it. Also, as overarching characteristics of good debate, I look for clash and cohesion, and thinking in addition to reading. I do not call cards, and will not look at evidence unless there is a specific dispute.

Having said this, regardless of how permissive a judge may be, it is the responsibility of the debaters to ensure that the round does not descend into ridiculousness.

Topicality: if it looks like more than vicious semantical warfare (either strategically/ rhetorically legitimate or just well argued) I'm fine with it. Show it's reasonable and then win the argument and I'll vote for it. I similarly allow the neg. lots of theoretical ground in defending against T.

Disadvantages: A debate classic, of course I'm fine with them. Real world grounding helps.

Kritiks: First make sure you understand it, then make sure I understand it, and you should be good. However, I expect kritiks to be argued with a high level of intelligence and analysis. I do not see criticism as mere "from the text" argumentation; the conceptual element should be conveyed. Unfortunately for you, I'm not majoring in philosophy, so I'd appreciate clear framework on less well known philosophers.

Counterplans: I'm fine with counterplans, and I default to being loose on counterplan theory (as long as it isn't obviously abusive) but am more than happy to look at theory arguments made for or against counterplans. I place an extremely high argumentation burden on non-real world counterplans, but am willing to consider them.

Metadebate: As a part games judge I love metadebate. Debating about debate is a key way to keep the debate fair and interactive, but I may get bored if the debate gets mired in a bunch of tiny theory specifics. Be sure to explain the reasoning behind your theory and framework arguments.

Others: Anything that is included in traditional debate I'm fine with. I am less familiar with non-traditional approaches but I won't hold it against you as long as I understand where you're coming from. I tend to focus less on "what" is being argued than on "how," and "why" it is being argued. Knowledge, creativity, intellectualism, strategy, and grasp should share the stage with technique and articulation.

Other than that... have fun.