Sprung-Keyser,+Ben

Ben Sprung-Keyser Harvard-Westlake ‘11 Harvard ‘15 Note: The judge philosophy below pretty well reflects my views but much of it is copied from other sources. If you have any questions please ask. I'll be happy to answer.

I debated on the national circuit for three years.

In making my decision, I tend to believe that I should limit my own intervention. In other words, I will vote on the arguments presented in round and will attempt to resolve the debate in a manner that is most consistent with the decision calculus that has been won or agreed upon. That said, my tolerance for nonsense or absurdity has certainly declined over time. If I believe an argument is patently absurd or wrong, I'm likely to consider it unpersuasive. Does this mean the argument will be ignored? No, but it probably doesn't help you in a close round.

In addition, there are four exceptions to my preference for non-intervention:
 * 1) If a debater wins arguments justifying judge intervention, I will intervene. Non-intervention is the starting point for my judging, but I won't impose it on you. If you win that I should use a different principle to guide my decision-making, then I will use that other principle.
 * 2) If I am //certain// evidence is miscut, then I will not consider the miscut evidence in my decision regardless of whether the argument is identified as miscut in the round. Cheating, whether intentional or not, will not cause your win.
 * 3) I will not evaluate arguments are become magically clear is rebuttal speeches. If an argument didn’t have a claim, warrant, and impact when it was first introduced, for the purposes of my decision, it does not exist (see my comments on //a prioris,// skepticism, and kritiks).
 * 4) I reserve the right to vote against (or deduct speaker points for making) any argument that I find racist, sexist, morally reprehensible, or otherwise offensive. I do not know what exactly would be sufficiently abhorrent to warrant such intervention, but I suggest that you steer clear of anything that might cross this threshold. I think that the vast majority of debaters don’t have to worry about this, but it’s only fair for me to say it anyways.

Having said that, I do have certain preferences, and it would be dishonest for me to claim that I am completely unbiased when it comes to debate arguments. I will try my best to put my preferences aside, but here are some general comments:

STANDARDS
 * I don't have any paradigmatic preference as to how the decision calculus is structured or presented so long as there is a clear metric for me to evaluate the round.
 * In terms of personal preference, I am biased against frameworks that do not allow for comparison (i.e. one violation is sufficient to affirm/negate), I dislike skepticism, //a prioris//, triggered permissibility and other similar arguments. I will vote for such arguments if they are won (and are tied to a cohesive ballot story), but I will likely be receptive to theory run against such positions as well. Also, making these kinds of arguments will not help your speaker points.
 * I will not vote on an argument simply because it is labeled “pre-standards” if I do not understand //why// that argument would logically function above the standards level, or if the reason why that argument would be an //a priori// was not clear when it was first presented.

THEORY
 * I will treat theory just like any other argument. I will vote for it if it is won, and I will hold debaters to the same standards as on other parts of the flow.
 * When answering theory, I think that debaters should always have one or both of the following: (a) “I meet” arguments on their opponent’s shell and (b) a counterinterpretation with offensive reasons it should be preferred.
 * It will be difficult to convince me that fairness and education are not at all relevant.
 * I will vote on RVI’s, I have bias against them and feel they may be necessary in some rounds, but I don't think that winning offense to a counter-interpretation is the same as winning an RVI.

SPEED
 * I think I can flow most speed. If you are going too fast, I will let you know. My ability to flow speed has certainly declined in my old age.
 * Please slow down for tags and author names. It is in your best interest to do so, because it will help me keep track of where you are on the flow in rebuttals.

CRITICAL ARGUMENTS
 * I am not very familiar with “critical literature,” and I will hold it against you if you are deliberately evasive in CX when asked by your opponent to clarify issues or if it seems like you are hiding behind unclear language throughout the debate. If I do not understand your argument when it is first read, do not expect me to vote for it when it makes sense later on. That said, I have no objection to good critical debate.

POLICY-STYLE ARGUMENTS
 * I tend to think policy-style arguments often make for the best debate rounds. I encourage debaters to run plans, counterplans, disadvantages and the like.
 * I will vote on theory against such arguments, but I think that it would likely be a slightly uphill battle. If you have a problem with the plan that your opponent is running, topicality is probably a much better option in front of me.

MISCELLANEOUS
 * CX is binding. Period.

Have fun, be polite, be confident, and be persuasive.