Heller,+Samuel

 Grady High School 2014 - 4 years policy debate Harvard College 2018 - 2 years policy debate samuelheller96@gmail.com

Topic Knowledge (China) - None

This is literally Patrick Kennedy's philosophy, with a few changes to parts that I (slightly) disagree with him about. I

I'm doubling down on the relevance of the line-by-line to my decisionmaking. I will no longer try to put arguments together for you, I'm tired of it. Answer arguments clearly, or they aren't answered.

Topicality is a thing and you should probably be topical. I'm not going to vote against you out of hand on jurisdiction, but I do think the aff should be topical as a general principle.

Reading a vague plan doesn't mean counterplans aren't competitive. I'm increasingly willing to vote on vagueness against a lot of these plans, especially when the aff makes wild clarifications of what the plan does in the 2ac.

Clarity is seriously an a priori concern. I'm going to suggest that you slow down from your incomprehensible top speed, and focus on increasing the quality of your arguments, rather than the quantity.

I won't dismiss anyone's arguments out of hand, but I might not love your arguments.

//I think it's incredibly difficult to make a strong case for most nuclear war impacts, and my standard for impact defense against bad impact evidence is low.//

I have realized that research quality is becoming increasingly important to me. I don't think "having a card that says our claim in it" is a stand in for evidence with a warrant or explanation of logic. //Make a good arg without a card before you read a shitty card//.

I can't (won't? either way) vote on arguments that I don't understand, which behooves you to make me understand your arguments. T//he arguments in debate that I have the least understanding of are those rooted in high theory (Baudrillard, Deleuze, Lacan, etc.)//

I don’t really like it when people debate with their heads down all the time. I think you would be better served slowing down and actually saying things, instead of trying to force the other team to drop stuff.

I am willing to vote negative on presumption. I think the aff has to construct a strong case for a departure from the status quo.

I am willing to vote affirmative on presumption. I think that the neg has to have a net benefit to their counterplan, and that "any risk of a link means you vote neg" is not a very educational standard for counterplan debates (though there are cases in which it makes sense).

My presumption is not for less change. Random change could just as easily be bad as good- you have to make an actual argument as to why less change it better.

Another thing I strongly agree with, from Michael Antonucci's wiki:

2. OVERHIGHLIGHTING IS DANGEROUS

Over-highlighted evidence can be pretty silly. It’s reached the point of implicit footnoting. I prefer the K teams that just overtly footnote stuff – it achieves the same effect without brutalizing the language. Even better, though, is reading evidence that completes arguments instead of alluding to arguments through disconnected violent noun phrases.

If your card: - Doesn’t form complete sentences - Only forms sentences through Phrase Legos - Otherwise makes me think of “word salad” I will probably discount it entirely. That is true even if I’m very familiar with a fuller version of your card.

I might read around highlighting to determine context, but this generally can only hurt you.

Old philosophy below - My politics have moved significantly to the left since I wrote this, that probably affects how I view debate, especially with respect to the K
 * ---Old Philosophy--- **


 * Short **

Everything I'm saying is a guideline. I'm making it strongly worded so you know how to pref me, but don't be scared into making args you can't execute well because of anything I write here. Doing a good job debating arguments I don't like will win you more rounds than doing a bad job debating arguments I do like.

My favorite judges tend to be old people, so my goal is to judge like an old person. This means that I tend to prefer truth over tech, explanation over "having a card", and depth over breadth.

If I can't explain your argument to the other team after the round, then I won't vote for you.

I like good T debates a lot, probably more than most people

K vs Policy - I'm in the policy camp when debating, and almost definitely lean that way when judging. I always do my best to make an impartial decision when judging, but I can't guarantee that I'll be able to totally suppress my biases when judging a K vs a policy aff.

Presumption goes neg if I'm not told otherwise.

An argument is a claim plus a warrant. If you have claims but no warrants, then you're going to have a hard time winning.

Evidence - It's cool, but you don't have to have a card to make an argument, and simply having good evidence won't win you a debate if you don't know how to use it. I know this is pretty vague, so read the "evidence" section of my philsophy for an explanation of what I mean.

Prep time - It ends when you finish prepping and start saving your speech. If you are taking an inordinate amount of time to flash your speech then I reserve the right to restart prep.
 * Judging Practices **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">RFDs/ comments - In novice and JV I will try to type my comments for debaters and email them to you and your coach rather than write them on the ballot - write down your email addresses before the debate or send an email to samuelheller96@gmail.com to make this process a little faster. I can do this in varsity if you want but I'd rather just give an oral critique in those debates

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">If the tournament does not have guidelines for dealing with accusations, I'll use NDCA guidlines ( [|here] ).
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">Cheating Accusations **


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">Evidence **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">Evidence v Explanation - Explanation and spin are more important than the evidence itself. I sign my ballot for the team that did the better debating, not the team that did the better research. Evidence is still important, and I'll call for cards if I need, but I'll read them in the context of how they were argued. If your card has a warrant that you don't explain, I won't evaluate it. If you put spin on the ev, I'll be sure to read cards through the lens of that spin.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">Evidence v analytics - As the quality of the evidence decreases, the difference between a card and an analytic approaches zero. If you are analytically refuting a well-qualified piece of evidence that makes reasonable arguments backed up with good data, you probably won't have much success. If you're pointing out the absurdity of an internal link chain that consists of a bunch of bloggers saying absurd shit, then you are spending your time well.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">Evidence Quality - A strongly-worded card is not the same thing as a good card. Good evidence has warrants, and maybe even some numbers.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">Spend more time making arguments and less time reading cards. If the debate is a card dump until the last 2 or 3 speeches, I won't be happy (and that will be reflected in speaker points). I will also be likely to make a decision you don't agree with because you have way less control over your arguments when you aren't telling me how to interpret them until the very end of the debate.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">Arguments **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">An argument is a claim and a warrant. A lot of policy debates are claim-heavy and warrant-light. If I don't think you've made a complete argument, then I won't expect the other team to answer it. You haven't won the debate because they dropped "vague alts are voting issue for fairness" because that's not a complete argument. If the 1AR tells my //why// vague alts are unfair, then only at that point does the neg have any kind of obligation to answer this argument. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">Also, this doesn't only apply to theory args. If you're 2AC to the politics disad says "winners win because the president is lion-tamer" without a card, then you haven't made an argument. If you do read a card, but the 1AR and/or 2AR are unable to articulate the warrant made in the card, then you still haven't made an argument.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">I'm less familiar with non-traditional affirmatives. I will do my best to judge these rounds fairly but understand my baseline knowledge is a fair bit lower than it would be for traditional affirmatives. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">I think topicality is a legitimate strategy against all affirmatives. The aff should be able to defend their relationship to the resolution, whether they're reading an aff about oil drilling, LOST or the Middle Passage. Obviously T debates for the latter will develop differently than they would for the first two but all are meant to answer the same fundamental question of whether the affirmative or negative has a better vision of debate.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">Non-traditional Affirmatives **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">Permutations - "Does an aff without a plan text get the permutation?" seems to have become a big thing recently. I don't feel strongly either way, but I'll default to assuming the aff gets a permutation. If the neg wants to challenge that, then they should start that debate as soon as possible.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">See the "Arguments" section of my philosophy. Fewer arguments with more warrants is a much better model for theory debates. Not only does it mean the debates are more substantive, but it's way easier to flow (if your 2NR makes 7 answers to Condo in 10 seconds expect me to write down 3 of them)
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">Theory **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">I like it. I don't think the neg has to prove "in-round abuse" to win T (obviously the aff can claim otherwise, but their time would be better spent elsewhere). I don't like it when people say they'll only vote on T if the aff is "clearly untopical". T is a strategy just like any other argument in debate. It doesn't become less true as the season progresses and norms are established (again, the aff can claim otherwise but their time is probably better spent defending the norm than proving its existence).
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">Topicality **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">I agree with what Ken Strange says about Topicality in his philosophy: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;">"On topicality, I prefer a standard slightly different from reasonability and competing interpretations. I think it should be negative burden to prove the affirmative interpretation is bad for debate, not just that the negative interpretation is marginally better. The best way to prove an interpretation bad for debate is limits – that the interpretation is so broad than the negative could never be thoroughly prepared to debate every possible case. "

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">I won’t default to kicking the counterplan for you. You need a single consistent world by the 2NR. If you wait until the 2NR to start this debate, the 2AR will get a lot of leniency
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt; line-height: 1.5;">Counterplans **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">I don't have too much to say about counterplan theory because I don't really have super strong beliefs. CPs that do the aff are probably bad. The 50 states counterplan is an absurd extension of fiat, but it's up to the aff to explain why that means I shouldn't vote for it.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">Zero risk of a disad – When I hear this phrase, I think of it as shorthand for “The risk of the disad is sufficiently low that it can be ignored for policymaking purposes”. While zero risk is technically impossible (maybe the SKFTA DA is still unique and there’s just been a mass media conspiracy to pretend like the agreement passed), the distinction between a probability 0 and .0001 is not going to be a factor in my decision.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">Disads **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">Intrinsicness - I probably like it more than most judges, but the aff still has an uphill battle. I do think a debate about the nature of fiat could be really interesting. This debate will probably boil down to whether politics DAs are good or bad and if the aff prepares for this debate well, I think they could school an under-prepared negative. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">Fiat solves the link and Bottom of the docket - these args are like intrinsicness, but shittier. I don't understand their strategic benefit.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">" <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333330154419px;">Generally, I guess this means I'd rather vote for well-developed, reasonable arguments than shitty and absurd internal link chains"
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">Politics **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">Like I said above, I'm not the best judge if you want to go for the K. You can win reading a criticism in front of me, but in an equally matched debate, I think I would vote for the aff against a K more times than not.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">Kritiks **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">High theory - I <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">f this is exclusively your thing, then you certainly aren't in autoloss territory but you do need to do more explanation than you normally would. I probably don't know the jargon you're using, and I don't expect the team you're debating to know it either. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">Do your best to explain it to someone who has no interest in the literature, and I'll do my best to fairly judge the debate. If I can't explain your argument to the other team after the round, then I won't vote for you.