Sherman,+Josh

I debated LD at University School (FL) from 2008-2011 and am currently studying at Rice University. I was fairly active on the national circuit in my senior year.

I am open to pretty much any type of debate as long as it's done well. I debated progressively so enjoy judging that kind of debate, but I won't reward any particular style of debate or any particular argument based on what kind of things I enjoyed doing. The easiest way to win my ballot is to make smart arguments and good strategic decisions throughout the round, though I will make my decision strictly off the flow. It is important to clearly establish a standard to adjudicate the round. Speed and theory are both fine. More specifically...


 * Speed:** I am fine with speed as long as you are clear and reasonably loud. I will say clear, slow, loud, etc., but if I have to interject more than once or twice, it will likely be reflected in your speaks. Don't sacrifice clarity for the sake of speed. You should enunciate, sign post clearly, and make it clear when one argument ends and the next begins. Please slow down significantly on analytics, theory, tags, and author names.


 * Framework:** Be comparative when talking about advantages and disadvantages to your and your opponent's frameworks; don't just isolate the debate to two different sections of the flow. Narrow utilitarian standards such as "minimizing terrorism" rarely include justifications to exclude other relevant utilitarian impacts. Just because terrorism is bad doesn't mean that other things aren't at least as bad. It is not acceptable to provide a new framework in the 1AR if you failed to do so in the AC. It's not in your best interest to run AFC.


 * Theory:** It is important to slow down considerably on theory. I prefer arguments about actual abuse to potential abuse and a four-part shell to paragraph theory, but I will vote on any of them if won. I will default to viewing theory as an issue of reasonability. You should avoid running time-suck theory, though the question of whether or not a theory shell should be considered a time suck is obviously nebulous. I generally find fairness to be a more effective voter than education. I default to viewing theory as a reason to reject the argument not the debater. When extending theory, be sure to include the interpretation, violation, standard(s), internal link(s), and voter(s). I will evaluate RVIs like any other argument.


 * Ks/Critical arguments:** I'm open to most arguments. That being said, I don't think I'm the best judge for critical debates. These debates often include questionable links, strangely established and/or incomplete standards, complicated philosophical literature with weird jargon and questionable coherency, and cards cut from books or articles in which the author takes several hundred pages to warrant the conclusion that the card apparently justifies. I am also not very familiar with critical literature. If you have a sick kritik that's well justified and understandable, feel free to run it. If you run it well, I will be as happy as I would be if you ran any argument well (more or less). I may even be impressed. But please don't run Ks to either a) confuse your opponent or b) confuse your judge and hope for them to rep out.


 * Extensions:** Extensions are super important. Be sure to extend the claim, warrant, and impact of your argument. This doesn't have to take the form of rereading or including all the minutia of your original argument, especially if the argument is conceded or if it's the 2AR and you're really pressed for time. With analytics, especially if they're only a couple lines, it may be easiest just to basically reread the argument in your extension. You should still explain the implication of the extension based on the particular round. Your extensions must demonstrate that you at least understand the necessary components of your own argument and should show that you understand your argument holistically. The best way to do this and to win the round is by clearly explaining the in-round implications of your arguments.


 * Weighing:** Weighing is also super important, especially in util debates. It's impossible to evaluate a util debate without intervening if neither debater has weighed. Saying "I outweigh on magnitude because I have a bigger impact," though it's better than not weighing at all, is a terrible argument. Please be very comparative and explicit when you weigh. New weighing is generally acceptable in the 2NR and 2AR if it doesn't contradict your own weighing done in a previous speech. Evidence comparison is also very useful.


 * Miscellaneous:**
 * I may call for important cards at the end of the round if the rhetoric or substance of the evidence is contested. If I don't have a certain part of a card on my flow, however, and I'm fairly sure it wasn't read, I will likely ignore it even if it is bolded, underlined, whatever, so don't go overly fast speeding through cards and don't try to get away with clipping.
 * I have a pretty good understanding of permissibility and presumption and how the two interact. Running either of these arguments is acceptable. On the current animal rights topic, however, I don't think arguments for why permissibility goes aff are particularly compelling.
 * You probably shouldn't run disclosure theory unless you have some really cool, new ways to justify it. If you're just running fairly stock disclosure theory, I probably won't vote for you, and if I do, you probably will get low speaks. If at the end of the round, theory is an issue of reasonability, I can't imagine a circumstance in which I would vote for disclosure theory.
 * I don't care if you sit or stand.
 * Feel free to talk to me before the round if you have any questions about my paradigm or after the round if you have any questions about my decision.