Judge+James+Hanley

Debated 4 years at Oak Park and River Forest High School, had fun/mild success, go to Stanford now.

I'm ok with anything, of course, but...

I appreciate intelligence, sincerity, and humor (pretty much in that order). I see debate as primarily 'educational,' as it is wildly important to the development of one deeply involved in it. You should therefore take it seriously, learn and have fun. Despite what they tell you, it's not all about the W. I have a vested interest in improving debate as an activity, and am less wary than most to hold debaters to standards of argumentation demonstrated to be necessary (read: theory). Making explicit the framework from which your arguments operate on deciding questions of the debate, then explaining why it is superior to/exclusive of your opponent's is the best way to get my ballot. If you have no coherent framework, your arguments are probably technical in nature and I will be prone to dislike them. I dream of a world where negatives are confident enough in their arguments to make them unconditionally, or where affs never went for cheap shots. If you're not convinced of your argument's worth, why should I be? I'm not a fan of nihilism, and conviction is a plus in my book.* Nevertheless, I flow, and will hold debaters to a threshold of consistency (looking at you, 2As). I like the idea of debate as a rhetorical activity. Speak with eloquence and elegance. I'll always wonder why aff choice got such a bad rap. Assuming this means you're also no longer allowed to just read word PICs and politics against K affs, it'd probably be a good way to get everyone on the same page and avoid dreaded clash of civilization debates. I like analysis more than evidence, history more than conjecture and clownin' where appropriate. I love Ks and theory. Don't ruin that by going for them.

P.S. Why should I only reject the argument if you broke the rules?


 * conviction and blind stupidity are not the same thing