Hansen,+David

David Bo Hansen Judge Philosophy – Fall 2012

I debated Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum and some CX through middle school and high school. I have been actively judging mostly CX and some LD on the Utah circuit since fall 2009. I currently compete and student coach NPDA/NPTE (think extemporaneous policy, link) style debate at Snow College.
 * Background**

I personally prefer to run specific Ad's/DA's, though I do run the K a bit. I cut my teeth on generic spending, heg bad, military bad arguments.

I am fine with going fast. If you're not clear, I will let you know
 * Speed**

I think you get 24/30 (Adjusted to whatever scale) for showing up to the debate. You may then work your way up by making good arguments/being funny or down by being rude/making offensive arguments (though I am not easily offended). An easy way to get speaks from me is to be funny and clear. I am an expressive judge.
 * Speaks**

If you're uncomfortable telling jokes, just make good arguments. I give out 30's to great debaters and 29.5's to funny, but good debaters. Keep it friendly :)

Do people ever run spec arguments in HS CX or LD any more? They shouldn't. I likely won't vote for them. Let me clarify: I will not vote on the trend of abusive spec procedurals. eg. Aff runs typical, normal means plan. Neg runs E-Spec because aff didn't specify executive branch would enforce, even though it is accepted that's what normal means, means. I do expect 'we meet' arguments out of the 2AC, however. This does not mean I won't vote on vagueness, topicality, other abuse procedurals. I will happily vote there if it is well argued.
 * Procedurals**

I default to competing interpretations on T. This is a shift from before (before I voted on in round abuse, but I've been convinced that that on its own is kinda vacuous.) I will, however, evaluate T on whichever mechanism is most well articulated. Don't let your standards be pointless! They are specific reasons to uphold your interpretation of the resolution.

My knowledge on K literature is that of a well-read college student. I have a working knowledge of most K ideas, but you shouldn't rely on me being well-versed in Schmit if you want to win. I am more familiar/comfortable with: Zizek, Kant, Chomsky (is he really a philosopher, though?), Malthus. I know most common K's on the circuit and I have voted for Cap, Malthus, Epistemology, Borders, Terror Talk (one of my faves). **I will not vote for rape good.**
 * K's**

Does your alt solve? Really? Most alts probably don't really, but if you can argue that it does well enough, I'll probably vote for you.

Not biting your own K is kinda hard and is probably really important. eg. Do you still advocate borders in round by advocating a ballot?

//For LD//: I expect you to interpret the resolution the way a philosopher advocating your value/vc would. Are you arguing for the value of Feminism? Then what would a particular feminist (gotta be specific – not with names, but with 1st wave, 2nd wave, eco-fem, etc.) have to say about the resolution. That's what your contentions should do. I have a working knowledge of most philosophies, but I expect you to explain to me what yours means and why it is better. I have a working knowledge of most theories behind values, but I expect them to be well explained.

Is your K Aff non-topical? Can you argue why topicality is bad or why you outweigh? Does it solve? Answer those right and I'm cool with any performance/k aff/strange argument you would like.
 * K Aff's**

I love CP's. They can be mutually exclusive or net-beneficial. Topicality of CP's is probably irrelevant if one of the other two criterion works. **I think policy debate is about whether or not the aff's advocacy is a good idea.** So this means the CP is a tool the neg may use to prove an opportunity cost to the aff. I have no predisposition to condo, multiple worlds. Slight bias against private actor, utopian.
 * CP**

//For LD//: I'm probably open to some old school CEDA value actions.

I think most HS debate rounds misinterpret the Disad. The Uniqueness should probably be fantastic in a disad and then the Aff comes along and messes the whole thing up to some degree. I'm more a fan of Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact DA structure, but I'll let any structure fly as long as it makes sense. These are often the easiest place to vote in most policy rounds. I'm fine with most tix scenarios, though I personally don't think that political capital is very strong argument. That being said, like all things in debate, if you argue it well enough then you will probably win :)
 * DA's**

//For LD//: I understand some teams/debaters are running DA's now. I am confused over this because a disad links to a fiated plan text, which does not happen in LD. If you can explain to me how this works/make it make sense in your speech, I will be happy to vote for it.

The 1A gets 8 minutes to articulate unique offense. It's the only speech like that; every other speech is responsive. I hate it when case goes dropped. It can be a really easy ballot for the aff. 8 minutes of offense conceded by the neg? So argue case.
 * Case**

I expect your arguments to be philosophical in nature. This is not a fact round about what is, but a value round over what could be/how do we interpret what is. Usually the debater that understands this is the debater that ends up getting my ballot. When both debaters understand their philosophy and arguments, then a real debate happens.
 * LD Under view**

I will vote on what you tell me to in the rebuttals. Like most judges, I want you to write the ballot for me. Make strategic decisions. Going for everything is probably a bad idea. Pick one argument that explains why you are winning the whole debate and go for that.
 * Generic Under view**

TL;DR – I will vote where you tell me to vote; make sure your arguments make sense, argue them well; defense wins football games, not debate rounds; don't be a dick.

Ask me any questions you would like. I probably missed something.