Catterton,+Chris

__**"Don't believe everything you think"**__

Update 2/27 2015: Nat Quals at CPS will be my first tournament since TOC 2012, where I judged LD through semis. I've judged some practice rounds since then and am reasonably familiar with the topic because I'm working with my alma mater, Analy High School. My preferences in the paragraphs below have all softened, particularly since I haven't followed the latest ideological conflicts in the activity. I'm open to any approach to the round as long as you do it well. Explain to me why and how I should evaluate the round under a given framework (could be your VC, theory, discourse, or whatever else) and then show how you're winning the most important offense under it. **__Weighing (aka argument comparison, on both the warrant level and the impact level) has always been important to me and still is. I think that a the essential purpose of a rebuttal speech is to write an RFD for me. It's unlikely that you'll win every argument in the round, so it makes the most sense to explain how the things you are winning decisively matter more than the things that are less clear or conceded altogether.__** I'm not sure whether I'll be flowing on my laptop or by hand, but I'll be able to keep up with more speed than the average judge but less than someone still active in the circuit community. I don't care about any formal decorum in the round (sitting down, untucked shirt, shaking my hand, etc) but basic decency and kindness towards your opponent and anyone else in the room is essential. This doesn't mean you should debate any less vigorously; it just means that you shouldn't be a jerk while doing it.

Background: I debated for Analy Highschool (CA) on the national circuit and broke at the TOC. I was a lab leader at NSD the last four summers and have been an off-site coach for Mountain-View Los Altos since 2009. I also assistant-coached for Lake Highland in 08-09 and Torrey Pines in 09-10. I'm fourth year at the University of Chicago and spent my third year at the LSE. Still, the West Coast is the best coast in many ways.

Pre-MBA 2012 Update: Speed is less of an issue than I thought, it's really just clarity in diction and structure that make it for me. I'll say clear, louder, or even slower if I have to. The absolute fastest might still want to take out a card or two, I'm not sure. Looking over my paradigm from the past, it's clearly written in response to what many debates looked like in 08-09. Nowadays, the best strat with me is probably just to **do what you do best**: I've been in the activity long enough to know the core issues and styles and will vote for whoever wins under whatever framework is shown to be most compelling. Given the sensitivities involved with the Jan-Feb topic, I'm open to an especially broad range of approaches. I'm not as well versed in the philosophical turn the activity has taken as many, but I am an intellectually curious person open to hearing new things. I still think theory debate is a vital check and don't understand debaters that don't at least learn to defend against it and assert basic rights for themselves. It can be overused, but that's not my problem as a judge. Feel free to email or facebook me if you have any specific questions.

Pre-Glenbrooks 2011 Update: I'm turning into a dinosaur as the years go by. Greenhill was my only tournament of the 2010-11 season because I spent the last academic year at LSE. I returned to NSD last summer for my fourth year on staff. What this means for you substantively: I'm not up on all of the latest trends, but I remain deeply skeptical of blippy and semantic framework arguments. I still appreciate weighing and clear statements of argument/warrant function/interaction. I'm best at evaluating ends based debates about different policies (not like they've been particularly relevant this year) and rounds where debaters weigh/prioritize. What this means for you stylistically: Barring truly impressive clarity, you want to keep it to 80% speed. I flow on a computer, so sign-posting and clear flow navigation is vital.

The original paradigm:

In short: Speed is fine. Theory is good. Compare arguments so I don’t have to. I tentatively prefer an offense/defense model for the round rather than truth testing, but am not absolutely confident in either paradigm.

In detail: 1. Offense/Defense—I default to evaluating the resolution as a question of competing worlds unless given a reason not to. This means that if you want to run a priori arguments about how justice doesn’t exist or the resolution is nonsensical, you need to win an internal link as to why truthtesting is good for me to evaluate them. That being said, it’ll be more enjoyable for everyone if I don’t hear the a priori storm at all. The reason I prefer offense/defense is not because I think it has a more logical grounding, but rather because I think trust-testing without limits is drastically unfair. This means that I would prefer if you answer abusive strategies with theory against that strategies (i.e. multiple a prioris bad) rather than on the framework level (offense/defense good). 2. Theory/Topicality—I default to evaluating theory through a competing interpretations framework. If you don’t have a counter interp or meet their interp, you’re probably out of luck. I don’t understand how “turning theory” (i.e. reasons why your counterinterp is best) is sufficient to vote for you. In round abuse is preferable to potential abuse, but either is winnable. An argument that says why the specific ground you’re being denied is good ground to begin with is really important for me. I’m not persuaded by generic (or unique for that matter) “fairness isn’t a voter” blocks -- I think that fairness is axiomatically important. On a case-by-case basis, I can be very sympathetic to 'reject the argument, not the debater' on theory. 3. Speed— This shouldn't be a problem if you are clear -- I flow on a laptop and can type very quickly. If you’re going to have a massive section of analytics/spikes in your case, please either slow down for that part or signpost with very audible “ands.” It’s important that you signpost your arguments well so that I just don’t type them in a random cell somewhere and try to connect the dots later. 4. “Critical” arguments—I don’t have any particular bias for or against these arguments. That being said, I think an alternative is important for Ks. You should slow down and clarify these arguments more because of their complexity. If you’re being smart, understandable, and unique with these arguments, don’t worry—just don’t make my flow read: “Something about the subject. Zizek writes; ugh, no warrant, word not in English, otherness?” 5. Grab Bag— -my level of attention in CX varies. Flex prep is fine if both debaters agree. I think allowing additional questions to spill over into prep time is absolutely fine. Don’t be evasive or lie. -weigh arguments and explain their function. This is absolutely key because otherwise, I’ll have to do it myself. I think “I outweigh on magnitude because I have the biggest impax lol” begs the question of weighing and I don’t think “negate a priori because the resolution in nonsensical” is an argument. Please develop some sort of framework to evaluate arguments under. I don’t care if it is a standard or something else. -Compare arguments on the standards debate. Just because your //fantastic// sentence long warrant for the standard is conceded doesn't mean you win the standards debate. Compare the logical implications of your extensions versus theirs so that I can resolve between conflicting extensions. -I didn't have to presume during 2008-2009, and I don't think I will have to this year. There is always a risk of offense. -I am a big fan of good evidence, so that is certainly a potential avenue of weighing for you. I have no problem with calling for evidence/portions of the case. -I’ll allow leniency on extensions, especially when vast portions of the case are dropped or if you’ve had to re-explain your argument significantly when answering their responses. This especially applies to the affirmative -- the timeskew is too massive to demand pristine extensions. -Speaker Points: I start with a 27 as a “medium” and can go up or down from there. Speaks go down (and stay down) for the taint of injustice, a prioris (in general), bad theory, linking “directly to the value”, and being evasive/mean in CX. If you’re mean, unfunny, and wrong, that is an epic fail. Points go up for good implementation/strategy/weighing. If I’m judging a really unbalanced round (i.e. less experienced debater vs. multi-bidded warrior), the novice can get high speaks by being smart/catching onto new things in the round and the warrior can get high speaks by having some modicum of class and teaching the younger debater exactly how they are getting destroyed.

If you have any questions or concerns, email me at my first name AT my last name DOT net, or just ask me at a tournament.