Seber,+Andrew

Some background: I debated for Loyola High School in Los Angeles, CA. I debated on the circuit for two years and went to the 2010 TOC. I am currently a first year at UCSB planning to major in philosophy. I am not biased toward any arguments. I am fine with whatever position you choose to take as long as a) you have a coherent link chain and b) the position actually affirms or negates. I ran a lot of critical style arguments, as well as disadvantages, counterplans, plans, etc., so feel free to use any of these case structures in front of me. That does not mean I am going to vote for you just because you run a unique advocacy, but I'll probably give you some ++ speaks if you run an interesting and logical kritik =]. __Framework__ I want you to provide me with some tool to evaluate and weigh arguments. Whether this is through a value/criterion, establishing moral rules or aiming to achieve some end, let me know what I am supposed to do with arguments. I am not going to default to a body count or utility calculus, but I have NO problem being told to do so. However, it is your job to provide a determination of value so I know what impacts mean (i.e. I am not going to assume that an impact is "bad" or "good" without being given some framework that determines what is "good" and "bad").

__Theory__ Feel free to run theory arguments in front of me, taking into consideration a few things: I am personally biased against a lot of frequently run shells. You can definitely win running non-specific, overly used shells, but I'll probably be sad and maybe (softly) adjust your speaker points. Using pre-written shells to avoid engaging the framework debate and to exclude arguments because of their philosophical nature is not the way to persuade me. I like interpretations to be specific to the abuse that is occurring in round. Your interpretation should establish some sort of rule or advocacy that would benefit debate and then explain how I should evaluate the abuse in relation to the ballot story. I REALLY don't want to hear "A: Debaters should not do X" or some other form of a complaint. If there is no rule that the other debater is breaking, I am not going to punish him/her. Also, I am not going to assume that fairness or education are voting issues. I will also not assume that theory comes prior to other arguments in the round. I think that both of these issues can be easily argued and won, but that is for you to do in round. I am open to criticisms of theory or framework arguments that place another argument in round above theory. I think theory should be used as a check on in round abuse. Just know that it is going to be an uphill battle for you to get me to vote on potential abuse (but, you can still win running arguments like that).

Other Stuff: Ask me ANY questions that you want at the beginning of the round that might be specific to the round or something not explained in my paradigm. I won't be offended by any questions that you might have about my experience or preferences. I don't start judging you until the 1AC starts so please, ASK YOUR QUESTIONS. I would hate for you to feel unfairly voted down for misinterpreting my judge philosophy. __**Extensions**__ should be something that you dedicate an appropriate amount of time to. It is going to be very hard to get my ballot if you spend 20 seconds extending a ton of arguments at the end of the 1AR or NR. However, I will take into consideration the amount of arguments and the amount of rebutting that you have to deal with during your speech. I don't expect the 1AR to have perfect extensions after a fast and loaded NC. Saying, "Extend the X1 card, which shows that Y will happen because of Z" should be sufficient (X being an author, Y being an impact and Z being a warrant). You of course need to explain what the extension means in relation to the arguments your opponent is making as well as respond to arguments that your opponent is making against whatever you are trying to extend. If an argument is dropped, feel free to speedily extend it and don't waste time expounding on warrants (but still extend them obvi).
 * Evidence**--if you tell me in a speech to compare pieces of evidence, I will do so. If I read a card and come to a different understanding of the warrants than how you presented them, then I will go with what I interpret the card to be saying. You should be very clear and place emphasis on your warrants so that I flow them in round. I will probably dock your speaker points if you can't clearly explain your own evidence and rely on me or your opponent to read it. I enjoy evidence comparison and will reward you if you present good evidence and explain why it is preferable to your opponent's.
 * Time**--Pay attention to time. The second your speech time is up, your speech is finished. I will know if you are trying to extend warrants that you didn't get to or that you gave after the timer went off.
 * Presentation** -- I don't care what you are wearing or how you choose to position your body in round.