Zavislan,+Matt

= = toc =Background:= I graduated from George Washington HS in Denver, Colorado in 2012 where I founded our LD program and debated for 4 years, although almost exclusively local circuit until senior year. I was an NFL semifinalist Junior year and qualified to the ToC my senior year. I am currently a philosophy major at Vassar College studying Nietzsche and The Heideggerian/Deconstructionist school as well as critical social theory especially relating to neoliberalism.

=BRONX 2014 UPDATES:= I will expand more on some of these later, but basically I have been out of the activity for a year and so have become increasingly cynical about the state of debate. I think most analytic philosophy contains really silly assumptions that people just pass over because they think them undeniable premises and so if you can point out the problems in these hidden premises you will probably have a good shot at winning.

The big differences in my paradigm: 1. I am way better versed in continental (i.e. kritikal) philosophy and would much rather hear these arguments than traditional frameworks. I won't penalize you for a traditional framework, I just think most of them are pretty obviously false.

2. While I will not outright reject the arguments, running AFC or "X is true because it's fair/educational" will probably instantly drop your speaks a few points. If you think this is your best way of winning, then go right ahead but don't complain when you don't get good speaks.

3. I no longer believe that skepticism is automatically a response to everything. While I don't believe that there are certain things that are "beyond skepticism" I think that skepticism belongs to a certain philosophical school and that the arguments made within the universe of discourse of that school don't necessarily apply to other schools of thought. I accept that this is often a strategy, so I won't reject these arguments, but the burden is on the debater positing skeptical objections to explain //precisely// how they interact. =Short Version:= I assume in wading through judges to do prefs or if you are preparing for a round, you don't want to read the monstrosity that has become my paradigm, so I will summarize some things to help you. 1) I am NOT Tabula Rasa. I will evaluate anything you say as fairly as possible and will never disregard something out of hand, but I won't pretend that I don't have preferences that will influence the ways in which I evaluate arguments.

2) I'm not a super flower, so slow down on tags to arguments/pause between numbered arguments.I will yell clear as many times as I need to and it won't hurt your speaks unless you don't put an effort into being clearer/slowing down. I also don't care if you sit or stand, read of paper or your laptop. It's your round, have fun.

3) I love philosophy (both analytic and continental) and really enjoy philosophy heavy positions. I was a framework/philosophy debater and these are the rounds I will be best at evaluating because I'm better read, more familiar with function, enjoy them more. Also, nuanced skepticism debates are really fun and Kritikal arguments still need frameworks (although obviously not of a tradition sort, I'll explain this more in the section of Kritiks)

4) I don't have a "threshold on theory" and don't care if you read theory as a strategy as long as you spend the time to develop it. This is also true of metatheory. I ran it and I understand how it functions. That being said: paragraph theory needs to be extended in shell form in the 1AR and I will probably wreck your speaks if your NC is just reading 5 theory shells and no substance. I'm a philosophy person, remember?

If you want more detailed analysis of some of these preferences, go to the specific sections below. = =

=Speed:=

I am not the world’s greatest flower so you should probably slow down on tags, __AUTHOR NAMES AND QUICK ANALYTICS__. Basically if you want me to get everything you say, take a shirt breath between arguments. E.g. "One: [Breath] Argument. Two: [Breath] argument." I will do my best to keep up and I view communication as a two way street so I will yell clear or tell you to slow down if I can’t flow you. I'm also sort of expressive and if I am not really understanding your logic I may give you a puzzled expression. So just pay attention.

BRONX 2014 UPDATE: I have been out of the activity for about a year, so while I can still probably follow you, I am out of practice so you might want to slow down a bit and/or make sure you are especially clear.

=General Framework Debate:= I love framework debate and I need some framework to evaluate the round be it a traditional V/C structure or something else. I was always a framework debater and these are my favorite types of debates to adjudicate. This also means that I will probably not be happy if the framework debate turns into a much of generic util/deont dumps since these tend to be stupid and not actually responsive to the interesting warrants on either position. If you want to win framework/get super high speaks in front of me, be clever, specific and nuanced on the framework debate; attack assumptions or presuppositions on our opponents framework. A quick note on framework: while I understand the need for efficiency, please give substantive tags to your framework arguments. It makes it so much easier for me to follow if you give me a little more than “And, this solves subjectivism” etc.

Also, To put it simply, I love skepticism. I think it is an interesting and extremely relevant part of philosophy’s attempt to explain just about anything. That being said, generic skepticism args and stupid borderline incoherent/unwarranted skep triggers will not make me happy. If you’re going to advance a skeptical argument, it would be in your best interest to make specific applications as to how it takes out your opponent’s framework. This is also true if you’re responding to skepticism, I am very likely to be persuaded by arguments that explain why your framework escapes some brand of generic skepticism and tend to believe that moral philosophy is set up as an answer to skepticism rather than vice versa. Also, I couldn't give two shits what Wittgenstein has in his big book and everytime I have seen that card in debate I have wanted to beat my head viciously into a desk. That being said, if you can actually explain the argument in terms of Wittgenstein's indict of moral language then I will be extremely impressed.

=NIBS/A Prioris=

I think these arguments are overused and oftentimes really stupid, but I am willing to vote off of them if they are well developed. I think they both have a place in debate and I think it is difficult to say that all NIBs or all a priori’s are good or bad since it really depends. Is an a priori that says the resolution is a tautology abusive/stupid? Probably, but that doesn’t make an entire category of arguments wrong. I also don’t really like it when people run theory because something somebody ran could TECHNICALLY be considered a NIB. I think in these circumstances I am very open to buying the I meet.

=Plans/Counterplans/Disads etc=

I almost never ran these arguments while I was debating but understand how to adjudicate them so If you like running these arguments I will listen to them, I will do my best to follow them and I will vote on them. A thing to note: I will be very very unhappy if I have to vote off of arguments like “even though there is lots of defense, a 00001% risk of extinction means I win.” I will vote on it if it’s conceded, but it will not be good for your speaks if I have to vote on something like that (Outrounds obviously means I will vote on it, and I will never intervene against it). I also believe in defense becomes terminal at a certain level of risk. For example, just because there is a 1/ 10^100 chance that something the aff does causes a nuclear war, I am not likely to be convinced there is still a risk of offense. I wont intervene/insert my beliefs into a round, but if there is no explanation of how I should evaluate those args I will default to that belief.

I think well thought out, interesting plans/CP debates are really fun but I am also probably more likely than most judges to vote on Extra-T or FX-T arguments because I think most plans In LD are either one of these. If you run a plan you better be prepared to throw down on why your plan is legitimately topical because I have a prejudice against voting for plans and smart T args are going to make that prejudice worse for you.
 * WARNING:**

=Theory/Topicality=

Many debaters are starting to use theory as a strategy to win rounds. To be honest, I really don’t care. I see theory as an argument just like any other and will vote on an absurd interp if you are winning it (In other words, I don’t have a unique “threshold on theory.” I don’t think that makes sense). Although would prefer that if theory is run, it take up a significant portion of the debate instead of just as throwaway strat since a) that makes debates messy and confusing and b) I think it's more fun to watch. I will vote on throwaway theory and it's fine to do but I won't enjoy it as much as a really good theory debate.

I default to reasonability on topicality (which I understand to mean that if the Neg has access to generics/could be expected to have prep on the aff, the case is probably topical, although I am open to hearing a different interp) I think the argument for reasonability can probably be made on theory as well and will default there if no argument for competing interps is made.


 * Note on Competing interps:** I don’t think winning competing interps means your opponent has to read a counter-interp. If you want to just respond to a shell without reading a counter-interp I presume an implicit counter interp that is the inverse of the original shell. (So if you read plans bad, I presume a counter-interp of plans ok. Although If you want a nuanced interp or you want to introduce new standards you need to read a counter-interp).Also, this doesn't mean I am unwilling to vote on arguments that say you need an explicit counter-interp. This is just a default. I also don't really like "risk of offense" arguments on theory since your job, as a debater running theory, is to prove that there is some skew in the round, I expect you to be able to explain why that skew occurs instead of just blindly impacting to fairness.


 * Note on Paragraph Theory:** I read paragraph theory as a debater and, while I think it's probably not good for the activity, I will vote on it. That being said, there are a few caveats: 1)it needs to be extended in the 1AR in a four part format (Interp, Violation, Standards, Voter). 2) I am not the world's greatest flower. So if you are reading paragraph theory you should emphasize the distinct parts of the argument (e.g. slow down on the interp and emphasize "standards" arguments with vocal intonation). 3) I am probably more likely to grant an I meet in the 2NR if the violation is shady than under normal situations because I am sympathetic to negs trying not to bite theory shells and being screwed by broad interpretations. This also means I am willing to accept the argument that the 2NR reserves the right to make new responses to paragraph theory extended in the 1AR and will probably be convinced by it if it is well warranted. (I won't assume it if you don't make the arg though). Also, I find myself pretty receptive to intelligent theoretical objections to why paragraph theory is bad.

1) You will be hard-pressed to get me to just ignore a confusing theory debate assuming that debaters agree to competing interps since there is always some way in which someone is winning some kind of offense (unless there is literally no argument comparison or substantive work done on the theory debate. In which case I will probably slash speaks). If reasonability is won then I am okay looking to substance if there is no clear offense on theory since that's basically what reasonability would tell me to do. 2) I noticed a couple things while evaluating theory: a) I have a pretty low threshold on theory and will vote for a story you are winning even if I think it's stupid or frivolous b) I have a low thresholds on I meets so you should be specific in your answers to these arguments instead of just extending interps and grouping.
 * Update:**

=Tricks= This is a little bit hard to gauge. I hate it when people try to extend blippy arguments to spike out of large portions of the neg case or when they embed things in cases to trick their opponent into dropping them. That being said, if you want to run a case with clever contingencies or spikes or whatever that are warranted and interesting I will probably enjoy it and will reward you with better speaks. (If you haven’t gotten the message by now, being clever and making nuanced arguments is going to make me happy and want to vote for you). In other words, if you can find some clever, well developed framework argument that precludes stuff or affirms on face, I would probably be pretty happy, if you read a two sentence blip about the topic being a tautology, I probably wont be.

1) I would prefer if you numbered spikes at the top of your case. I think the theory arguments for not numbering or others clearly differentiating spikes ("also", "moreover" etc doesn't count as clearly differentiating) are probably true and will vote for them. 2) label the functionality of your arguments. If something affirms pre-standard, triggers presumption etc. its functionality should be made clear. Tell me in the AC/NC that it affirms/negate prestandard or something would cause me to vote on presumption. I will be receptive to new cross applications/answers to implications if these are not explicity labeled.
 * LABEL SPIKES/TRICKS/SIMILAR ARGS:**

=Kritiks:=
 * BRONX 2014 UPDATE:** I have spent the last few years reading continental philosophy and I firmly believe that it is probably more correct that most (if not all) analytic philosophy. However, I think that 90% of the time when people try to explain these arguments they get caught up in the jargon and don't actually make real arguments. I want you to engage with the argument you are making.

Kritiks can be a lot of fun when done well but otherwise make my ears bleed. If you want to read a kritikal position you had better devote the time and effort into understanding it and making is clear and comprehensible for everyone else. I don’t like it when people read stuff that is dense and hard to understand as a strategy in the hope that their opponent will just roll over.


 * 1) Kritiks or Kritikal Affs are arguments just like any other argument so you need to give me some form of framework to evaluate your impacts. (Read: You should create some sort of framework. Reading an Agamben case and just yelling about Homo Sacer doesn't tell me why I ought to give two shits) Failure to do this means I don't know how to evaluate your position and you will probably lose. This also means you have to do more work that asserting how stuff impact turns your opponents framework b/c I have no idea what that means or why I care. (go ahead and make those args, just explain why they matter in terms of my ballot)**

2), I am a fan of Alts that actually advocate something and that aren’t simply “reject the aff.” If you are the Aff and you read some creative, well-researched, non-generic kritikal position and can explain the ballot story to me I will probably be extremely happy and give you high speaks. I don’t like kritikal negs as much as I do Affs, but I will still reward with speaks you for a well researched/thought out position. I understand that for a lot of these positions the only viable alt seems to be "reject X," but I can assure you, it isn't. Rejection is an implication, not an alternative.

BRONX UPDATE: Having though about this, I think the way LD deals with kritikal arguments is really silly. The alternative is understood as some kind of impact when, in reality, it should often be considered a kind of framework (that maybe shouldn't be last?) that explains why the impacts you are talking about matter and what epistemic/ontological shift you are advocating.

3), I tend to really hate when the Terminal Impact of a Kritikal position is "Y justified X utilitarian bad" (Genocide, Extinction etc). There are a lot of interesting discussions in continental philosophy that I like better than "this justifies infinite violence against the other" impacted as a **utilitarian harm**. (unless it's something like Militarism, capitalism or something like that. It's not that I won't evaluate these arguments, it's more of a soft preference against them).


 * "Kritikal" Philosophy I am familiar with:** I study Nietzsche, I think he's awesome and I've read a ton of his corpus and am very familiar with it. I also have a pretty solid understanding of Heidegger (although don't just make assertions about how "proper ontologies" because this really misses the point of Heidegger's critique of western metaphysics). I am also reasonably familiar with French Deconstruction (Derrida, Blanchot, Nancy etc) but if you read these positions I expect you to be able to actually explain the deconstruction and it's implications. Don't just read a bunch of Derrida cards and extend a one-sentence tag because then you're totally ignoring your own project. I also hate neoliberalism and am pretty well read on that specific issue, although I am not fond of the generic "this is neoliberal, neoliberalism causes extinction, thus reject" framing of the issue because it's honestly really juvenile.

=Speaks:= I’m not sure exactly what my speaker point scale is, but I would guess I average about a 27-28 and probably will be more willing to give high speaks than some judges. The best way to get a 30/high speaks in front of me is to debate smart, make specific nuanced arguments and know what you’re talking about. I won't intervene for arguments I like, and will probably have to vote for arguments I don't like. If you're winning an argument I'll usually vote on it (all exceptions are listed either above or below. If you have a question about a particular argument,ask before the round) if it's an argument I like, I will be happier voting on it.

=Stuff I Don't Really Like= I don't claim to be a completely blank slate, I claim to be a human with preferences who does their best to evaluate the round as presented. That means there are inevitably going to be some things I don't really like. Some of the things on the list are harder preferences than others and the degree to which these preferences will affect my decision. Usually doing these things will just make me unhappy and I can promise that I will never straight up intervene against a conceded argument. If you're reading this and thinking that I'm an interventionist judge, then you are probably very blind to the fact that every judge has things they don't like and don't want to vote for, I'm just trying to be helpful and list those preferences for you before the RFD.

1. I probably won't vote for "topicality/theory bad" arguments unless they are dropped/really mishandled. This is especially true if its an obvious cover for something that an opponent would run theory on. The exception to this would be a kind of Foucaultian critique of theory as a certain methodology of "truth."

2. Unwarranted, generic skep arguments that just say "morality cannot exist" (E.g. Most Wittgenstein cards people read). Remember, I really like skepticism as long as the arguments are warranted an explained in terms of an opponents framework. But some arguments aren't really responsive to some frameworks. It's not that I won't vote on these arguments, but I will default to the assumption than any extended moral framework is an answer until you explain why your argument takes it out.

3. Rakowski/Cummisky as the only warrant to consequentialism. It's fine if you want to include these cards in addition to some intelligent util framework, but I've too often seem people just read one of these cards and then just assert util. It won't make me happy if you do this. Believe it or not, there are metaethical/epistemological justifications for util that are more than "OMG ALL PEOPLE ARE EQUALZ"

4. Reading those same Gauthier cards that everyone reads without some explanation of why I ought to care about morality being mutually beneficial. Basically you should justify some form of egoism, internalism etc. The same is true with other frameworks. Reading the one Korsgaard card about people being unconditionally good doesn't really warrant deontology.

5. Reading a Criterion of Kant's Categorical Imperative. Just please don't do it. Go ahead and read practical reason and have a standard about universalizing maxims, not using people as a means, whatever. This is just a pet peeve of mine.

6. Most theory based on out of round events, for example disclosure theory. The exception is disclosure theory on a plan debate. I think there is a unique educational reason why the TEXT of a plan ought to be disclosed prior to tournaments and I will be very willing to vote for an argument that debaters must disclose plan texts. Also, if your opponent agrees to disclose to you before the round and they give you bad information and you can somehow verify this, I will be willing to vote on that theory argument.

7. Reading dozens of terrible, two or three sentence framework justifications. This just makes me want to stop listening, vote you down and destroy your speaks. It's fine if you include these types of justifications, but please have some developed framework warranting your standard instead of a blipstorm.

8. Arbitrarily specific util standards. Don't try and exclude your opponents nuclear war impacts because your standard is about minimizing terrorism. That's just silly. (Note: if it's not warranted in a utilitarian manner, but some weird, nuanced and probably interesting kritikal way, then absolutely run something like minimizing terrorism, just not if it's util)

9. Skep doesn't take out theory. I'm sorry. It just doesn't. The way I see it, if skep means that I don't care about the rules of debate then it's totally okay if I vote for your opponent because it's not like you can object, right?

10. Your opponent may ask you questions in CX. If you refuse to answer these questions (and it appears you are consciously doing so as opposed to being ignorant of that particular norm) you will probably get around 12 speaker points and I will REALLY not want to vote for you.

11. If you are obviously better than your opponent, don't be a dick about it. I will actually give you better speaks if I know that you refrained from doing something that might have been strategic (e.g. running theory) against a much worse opponent and instead just win straight up. There are two people in a debate round, try to make it fun for the other person too.

12. I don't feel like I have an obligation as a educator to endorse your movement. I'm not an educator. I'm a college student who likes debate. I'll vote for micropolitical argument or arguments with pre-fiat implications, I just really don't like that particular argument. This is more of a soft preference though as I will definitely vote on it if you can persuade me why it matters. I just probably have a bias against it.

Also, the biggest problem with the debate community tends to be the stupidity of those involved. You all have brains for a reason, use them. >.<