Schuyler,+Zach

Graduating Newburgh Free Academy (NY) in 2011. Primary event: Lincoln Douglastoc

Secondary events: CX, PF Conflictions: NFA College Freshman Any questions feel free to ask. ThatDudeZach@gmail.com

=The Open Flow System= Peter Cancro began giving his email out on ballots starting in 2010. I have decided to adopt his system. So here is how this works. If I judge you you can see my flow of the round.

This has several benefits: 1: You can see how much of your arguments I got down. This helps you to know if you went "too fast" or if you didn't make an argument explicit enough. 2: My RFD will be written on the flows.

How? You email ThatDudeZach@gmail.com with "Your school and code" and "Your name". I will respond with an excel document that will be your flow.

Overview:
I am familiar with the very progressive movement that Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas have brought upon themselves. I am completely open to both traditional and progressive styles. I don't mind if the progressive debater wishes to simply make his frameworking habits "util" but he should be prepared to answer when his opponent has a Value: Justice and the VC: Respecting Rule of Law. In this way I am still referring back to standards to weigh the round but I can be dissuaded from doing so if the debaters argue for that. If you justify straight net benefits FW then that's ok.

This said anything is okay. Truth-testing, PICs, Morally questionable arguments, Narratives, Theory, etc. Any of the following preferences are not biases that will cause me to reject the debater or hack for an argument but it will make it more likely that I buy the argument. However answering these arguments sufficiently will cancel out any bias towards arguments I like. Winning the debate in front of me is winning my ballot. My bias will play the minimum effect in terms of win or loss. These are just my preferences and some of my opinions on debate issues.

Some of my pet peeves:
This being said I have several nuisances that will probably effect my opinion of you and how generous I am with speaker points.

1: I hate when people do not weigh when there are competing claims or competing pieces of offense. If you have an impact and your opponent has an impact weigh, tell me why yours is bigger. I am unable to rationalize things like probability and time-frame so please make it simple by showing your impacts affect more people.

If you are in a util versus deontology debate and you both say the other causes policy paralysis. Tell me why your opponent's warrant is cruddy then tell me why your warrant is superior.

2: Don't let your opponent get away with impacts that are too large.

If your opponent says war has killed 1000000000000 people in the history of man kind, then he says sanctions make war shorter... explain that they don't get an impact of 100000000000 people. Only 10.

If your opponent claims nuclear war and there is no internal link, point it out.

And most importantly point out that if there is defense on the link that I shouldn't grant them full weight of the impact. SIZE LINK = SIZE IMPACT. Although I am open to arguments otherwise IE need to act against extinction / racism at all costs. ETC

3: Don't talk against your opponent like "they don't weigh for you" and then repeat the same mistake you just criticized. If they aren't weighing, point it out and weigh!

Now here is some more specific questions.

DAs:
1: I tend to evaluate based Offense Defense but I am a believer in Zero Risk or Total Defense. (I obviously don't know what offense defense actually means).

If you layer your defensive answers such as -Non-unique -Logical fallacy -No warrant -Empirically denied

against a single argument then it becomes significantly easier to vote off Zero Risk. I sometimes feel like when I get to make the decision of whether I grant someone a "risk" or "no risk" it is arbitrary so I would much prefer the debaters to say "i still win a risk" or "this argument is stupid. don't give them any risk".

2: I find that LDers tend to go back to the same bad cards as policy debaters do. We read Mead, (thank god not Kirpin) Diamond etc. If there is a more specific link (IE one that talks about the topic and its implications) I would MUCH prefer that.

3: U/Q overwhelms the Link is an amazing argument against most DAs. If an LDer can explain this argument I will probably look to it (if it is won). Honestly this would take out soooo many of the poorly written DAs.

Counterplans:
I generally prefer to have a counterplan or counter advocacy to weigh against each other although you need to explain a net-benefit or a reason yours is better (which they can't solve for). The only significant problem is that presumption is not for the affirmative in LD. This means if the negative reads a non-competitive counterplan or a counterplan without a net-benefit then the negative still wins. At this point I would EXTREMELY appreciate the affirmative if they were to make warrants for affirmative presumption (or even theory against the counterplan).

I think LDers should ask the status of the counterplan so they know if they can turn the counterplan ext. CAUSE YOU CAN DEFINITELY TURN A CP TEXT. (AND I WILL UNDERSTAND IF YOU SAY THE CP IS CONDITIONAL). LD steals CX terms and then changes their meaning. So please just tell me if your cp is a voter for fairness or education. Those are the net benefits I use to weigh counter-plans. And if you say the cp is unconditional, I will judge-kick it in the RFD.

Kritiks:
I am a K-fan boy and love to run them. I am well read on a lot of diverse K literature and understand deconstruction and a lot of post-modern concepts. This being said I am not necessarily a K-hack because this also means I know which warrants you need to win to get the ballot. For example if you are reading discourse you need a reason why discourse matters or why a discourse / activism alternative is effective.

I generally prefer a policy/activism alternative instead of a rejection alternative. They generally lead to better debates (and have warrants). If there is a policy/activism alternative I am also open to disadvantages read to the alternative (IE the affirmative is something the alternative cannot do). This means I can weigh impacts versus the kritik.

I am not certain how I stand on intrinsic perms being made by the affirmative. 1: there is no advocacy in most rounds 2: if it is intrinsic perm but it still proves the resolution true then how do i evaluate? This is debatable and sometimes should be in round. I have watched rounds where the issue of how a perm functions is questionable.

Role of the ballot is appreciated if the alt is not a policy making action or strict negative ground. How do I use my ballot for discourse?

Theory:
Theory / Topicality: Yes

They are different and will be split up.

I am absolutely fine with theoretical arguments. I am much more open to voting on theory if your opponent is actually abusive although I will vote off theory if it is won.

-Reasonability: please read this as a response to theory. LDers usually can't answer this. CAUSE REASONABILITY IS LITERALLY UNBEATABLE.

-RVIs: ok but give more than (I wasted my time responding to Theory) because those whiny arguments WASTE MORE TIME. I am open to Ks of theory as well...

I have also seen really interesting arguments against RVIs such as game theory etc. These are debates to be had if your opponent reads an RVI.

Topicality:
I generally wish to know why your definition is better (rather than just an arbitrary definition that fits your case the best). If you prove it isn't arbitrary IE its a federal definition and has credibility than it makes it easier to win standards.

If you go for standards like "Limits" or make responses like they still have arguments give a case list or example IE the negative can still run Iran DA, Ks, Toolbox, Terrorism NCs. Or I limit out only a few non-essential cases like arms embargoes... This gives warrants to your standard and makes it easier to vote on it.

Although I don't generally run it much in LD I do go for it a significant amount of the time in CX so it is one of my favorite positions.

Truth-testing:
I have no problems with truth-testing but presumption is an absolutely critical issue. Usually aff stuck to the resolution is not all that compelling. Also I tend to agree with arguments of presumption changing because of a perm or a pic being read or because somebodies burden is changed.

This also means I'm fine with the skepticism or error theory arguments. However I am fairly open to intuitive responses. IE error theory is wrong because all humans have the urge to give dessert. Retribution is thus objective.

Public Forum Paradigm:
I competed in PF at Nationals so I've never had rounds in a year or two. I mostly judge PF at the MHL but this is for whenever I judge.

I am an LD debater so I prefer to evaluate based on whose arguments best prove their side rather than just the convincing rhetoric. I do however appreciate the presentation with speaker points. This also means you should clearly sign post and tell me what argument you are making, where it is to be flowed (if it is responding to something), and it's weigh in the round.

I am more open to arguments that are intuitive and not explicitly warranted in public forum because of the shorter time and it's focus on being as its name states a public forum. However I would warrant your arguments and NOT assume that I know the topic literature or the common arguments on topic. My extent of topic knowledge is helping my public forum debaters with arguments. They do not often discuss what everyone else runs though.

I'd actually like some argument comparison or statistics comparison done in PF. If numbers are your thing and you can explain to me why your opponent's studies are bad then it makes it so much easier to evaluate. This is much better than two ships passing in the night and me having to arbitrarily pick which number is better.

Other than that debate it out. I am different then the typical critic you may meet but I try to be nice and understanding to every style of debate.

I debate sporadically in policy but I am perfectly able to flow and understand the fastest of policy rounds. I could keep up with debaters in fast rounds of policy bid tournaments... I am fine with any types of arguments as I often incorporated them in LD rounds.

IF YOU ARE A PAPERLESS DEBATER: I strictly follow any tournament rules on paperless because they need to run on time. So if they say "count it as prep" I will do as I'm told.

The are only some minute preferences...

1: I'd love to have you interpretation of "questionable evidence" and compare evidence for me. If there is a card they read that is sketch, point it out and give an explanation why... this makes calling evidence and looking for what I need to see a LOT easier. Furthermore I'd like you to explain why their evidence is not as good as yours. This makes it much easier for me to evaluate cards. I don't judge policy that often so I'm not 100% comfortable comparing 5 different cards from each team. This helps me in that respect.

2: I don't like the oh let's read two topicalities, two disads, three counterplans (one is a generic pic), a k, and whatever looks sorta applicable from this camp file and see what they drop. I find this is a junior varsity strategy. I also like specific case arguments like Inherency arguments or Impact turns to advantages or solvency deficit arguments. These are really good for generating net-benefits for a counter plan or to weaken the affirmative's plan. I like on case arguments.

3: I appreciate comparison of theory/topicality standards. What is most important? If you are going for condo or topicality or whatever then this analysis should be done. It is also important for the 2A to do this in the 2AR if they are going for T or theory.

Defaults (as in my typical preferences but can EASILY be changed) I default to being a policy-maker but I can be easily persuaded to evaluate an alternative framework as I like kritiks and kritikal literature. Defaults on theory issues: One condo advocacy and squo = ok More than one conditional advocacy = sketchy Dispositional advocacies (as in you will answer offense and turns) = legit Multiple worlds... = sketchy Topicality = probably a good thing but i've run non-topical positions so i'll sit on the fence.