Teleky,+Seth

Bronx High School of Science '09 Tufts University '13

If you have specific questions that aren't answered here, don't hesitate to ask.

Background I competed extensively at national and Northeast tournaments in LD from 2005 to 2009, attending the TOC twice. I taught at KNDI.

Speed I don't flow very well, so signposting and enunciation are very important to me when speaking quickly. I will say clear or speed if necessary. I may call cards or written arguments after the round if the exact text seems relevant to my decision or to get the cites.

Argumentation Don't make overtly stupid or unrealistic arguments (e.g. most nuclear war and extinction impact scenarios). Some specific things: 1) Theory's absolutely fine and I often like hearing it and vote on it, but you must explain why I reject the debater instead of the argument if you want to make it a voting issue. Also, if there's clearly no significant abuse or it's obvious that you were planning on running it before the round began regardless of what your opponent ran, I may disregard the theory argument even if you are winning it on the flow. 2) I dislike plan/counterplans and disads and I am not particularly good at judging rounds that focus on them, but if you decide to run one I will do my best and won't take off speaker points. They should link to some warranted standard or similar evaluative mechanism; I feel completely comfortable disregarding huge impacts if your opponent wins a narrow standard. I'm also not particularly great at evaluating complex plan/cp debates. That said, I would much rather you run a structured plan/cp than a three sentence alternative if it's going to be a significant part of your advocacy. 3) I don't have a very strong background in postmodern and critical philosophy but I am familiar with a lot of it and sometimes find hearing arguments in that vein interesting. Make sure they are clearly warranted and impacted and be prepared to do extra work to explain it to me (which may entail slowing down). 4) I dislike most kritiks, but am open to evaluating them so long as there is an explicit, real alternative (i.e. one that isn't "think critically" or "increase awareness") or very good reasons why you don't need one; otherwise I will be automatically disinclined to vote for it.

Speaks 26-30. To get below that you'd need to be unbelievably atrocious or offensive. I may disclose speaks if you ask.

Random things 1) I apparently have higher standards for warrants and extending them and their impacts than most other judges. Explaining why an argument doesn't have a warrant or was insufficiently extended is also often more compelling to me than it appears to be for a lot of other judges. If I feel an argument is poorly extended or unwarranted I may disregard it even if it was dropped by your opponent. 2) I will automatically drop you at least one speaker point if you refuse to give your opponent your case or any prewritten argument s/he calls for. Refusing flexprep is okay though. 3) I try not to presume for either side automatically unless a presumption argument is made; if both debaters screw up and are missing a necessary link, I will do the minimum amount of work necessary to vote for one or the other. 4) I have often found myself voting for the less obnoxious debater, though that is not something that I consciously factor into my decision.