Burdett,+Nolan

I debated 4 years of LD at Dulles High School. I qualified to the TOC twice in LD and did some policy here and there also. Although I tended to debate a specific way towards the end of my career, I don’t think that really reflects my paradigms as a judge. I’m open to pretty much any argument as long as it makes sense and isn’t reprehensible (I’m pretty sure by now we have a decent general understanding of what that means). My general view of debate is that what it means to participate and exist in the activity is completely decided upon by the debaters. Role of the ballot/judge (which includes fairness/education claims) and other higher level arguments that pertain to the debate space are persuasive to me as well, but make sure when justifying your view of debate you set up an actual framework for an educational model/whatever you think debate is and justify it. Also, please give me a way to weigh or evaluate impacts under whatever framing mechanism you choose because fundamentally I think all of these arguments are just framework arguments. Tricks: I actually have a soft spot for tricks, especially when done well. Skep triggers, presumption, permissibility, a prioris, and spikes are all things I’ll vote on. Just make sure the new implications being made are well articulated, and that they clearly follow from some argument made in a previous speech. Jokes about trap cards are encouraged if you can get a good line in there. I’m also not beyond voting on weird/innovative tricks that apply to different layers of the debate, or that don’t take the traditional “trick”form or whatever. LARP/Util: I’m not the best at evaluating super high speed tech-heavy LARP debates, but I think I have a reasonably good understanding of how things break down in the general sense. Things that make it much easier on me here are (and these are just a few): -evidence comparison -explicit weighing -implicating evidence/arguments -specify exactly what the impacts you’re going for are Definitely do not be discouraged from running plans, DAs, CPs, or whatever because I’ll vote on them. BIG THING is that I like very clearly delineated net benefits to each debater’s “world”because it makes it much easier to evaluate weighing arguments. K’s I did a lot of this in high school, but I don’t think my actual views reflect what people might think based on the way I debated. I believe a critical argument is just a normal argument that draws claims from certain bodies of literature. There’s no difference between a K and a cp. I really like to have actual frameworks in K’s, which is very lacking currently in my opinion. I say this because otherwise evaluating impacts under the framing K’s set up can be very difficult —if running critical arguments, please be clear as to what counts as an impact. I don’t need everything to be “normatively justified,”but please somehow warrant why people in our current position should care about the impacts you claim to solve for. Policymaking v K: To me, this debate is often extremely underdeveloped and people just extend arguments past each other to try to justify their interpretation of how solutions to critical problems should exist. My opinion is that this is largely a question of the role of the ballot. Also, when reading dumps, I want the differences between the warrants in your arguments to be very clear. For example, I don’t like the generic “we need real solutions”over and over again, I want a warrant for why in debate rounds real solutions are the most productive thing to produce. Likewise, I don’t just want “mindsets affect policymaking”I want to know the actual process of how a mindset or metaphysical paradigm actually affects the real world. T/Theory I have a decent understanding of how theory works, but I wouldn’t call it advanced. So, if you’re the kind of debater that runs lots of shells please be clear with them. Mostly my trouble with theory debates is that they’re extremely hard to flow and the weighing is really bad. As long as you are clear about which arguments you’re going for and the implications of those arguments, you should be fine. I’m open to both reasonability and competing interpretations. I don’t have a default because I expect the debaters to justify one or the other, but in a hypothetical situation if both people just said nothing on the topic I would probably default reasonability with a bright line of in round structural abuse. However this definitely doesn’t mean I’m biased to this paradigm, PLEASE say something about your framework for theory because its important. I’m also cool with impact turns to theory or that it’s not a voter, or any random creative attempts at engaging/responding to theory. If you’re not sure about the argument, I’m probably the judge you want to try it in front of. As long as the argument is warranted and you can execute, I’ll vote on it. Another thing that’s probably important here is that if I don’t think I can confidently resolve offense on the theory level, I will make it a wash and go to the level that would logically come next. This doesn’t mean I’m going to avoid evaluating a theory debate, but it does mean that after I think I’ve thought about it all I can, I won’t make a decision if it isn’t a confident one. The solution is to just weigh, so shouldn’t be too bad. T is mostly the same for me. If you have any specific questions just ask. Framework: I love framework debate. I secretly love Kantian ethics and think that normative philosophy is underused in debate. Good, warranted frameworks with lots of implications and a clear impact calculus are some of my favorite things to see. Syllogisms are cool, bullet points are cool. HOWEVER please go slowly on tag lines, be clear with author names and do your best to define philosopher’s terms if they aren’t reasonably common knowledge. I’m also extremely open to people using framework to interact with K’s, because I think those debates are fundamentally on the same level. Speaks: I’ll give speaks based on clarity, execution of strat, and CX. I’ll clarify. Clarity - slow down on tag lines, pause before and after author names, even if just for a moment. If you don’t know how slow to go err on the side of caution and go slower. If I lose you I lose you and that’s completely your fault. I’ll make faces if I’m lost, and I’ll say speed and clear. Strat - If the strategy is clever, or you just execute a straightforward strat very well, that will have a very strong positive effect on your speaks. That can be anything from reading 5 conditional off cases to sticking with the same position all round. Cool/interesting applications of arguments will also award you speaks. CX - if you are clearly rude to your opponent, talk over them, intimidate them, or display any micro aggression your speaks will drop. You don’t have to be nice to your opponent, just be polite and have some respect. On the flip side, smart or strategic cx questions will award you points. If you’re friends with your opponent I’m cool with things being more casual. Otherwise, not much else to say here. CX belongs to the debaters in my opinion. Extensions I don’t need you to explicitly say “extend this argument whatever”if you reference the argument throughout the speech and identify where it was on the flow. I will count this as an implicit extension as long as the warrant is reiterated. HOWEVER, if you aren’t sure its enough I’d just do a traditional extension. By that I mean I need the location on the flow, the author name if there was one, claim, warrant, and implication. It can be quick, I just need to have a full argument. I’m really big on implications though so impact your arguments.