Levy,+Jessica

I debated LD competitively on the national circuit for Walt Whitman High School, qualifying to the TOC as a sophomore, junior, and reaching semi-finals my senior year. I currently attend Harvard University.


 * __Short Version:__**

I will vote on any argument, so long as it is an argument (the conclusion follows from the premise), and I understand it. This means I don’t feel obligated to vote on “The sky is blue, thus affirm” even if it was dropped, but I won’t disregard a warrant even if I believe it to be false as long as it is provided, extended, and objections to it are answered.


 * __Long Version:__**

The following are my default thoughts on a couple of different issues, but arguments made in the debate obviously supersede these.


 * Paradigms for Debate**

Absent analysis, I view the resolution is a statement to be proven true by the affirmative. Competing worlds is fine, but please don’t assume that it automatically entails a utilitarian calculus. Recently, new paradigms for the debate space and the role of the ballot have become more prevalent. I will listen to any arguments presented for them, but am less comfortable with viewing the debate space these ways, so you run a greater risk of being upset by my decision.


 * Substance**

I have found that the debate round tends to be best when debaters debate their preferred style, rather than trying to overly adapt to a style they think their judge will prefer. When I debated, I largely read philosophical positions, and I'm not going to say I don't enjoy listening to good framework heavy debate. But, I am totally fine adjudicating policy arguments, kritical arguments, or whatever you would like to run. Just recognize that I am significantly more knowledgeable about analytic as opposed to continental philosophy and may be unfamiliar with incredibly technical policy jargon. When in doubt, err on the side of caution and provide more thorough explanation. Especially when running kritical or burden based positions, please provide me with impact analysis that instructs me on how you want me to evaluate your arguments, as I default to doing this through a normative standard.


 * Theory and Topicality**

I have no qualms voting off of theory, but I prefer to see it run against actual abuse.

I enter the round believing fairness and education are at least reasons to exclude the unfair or un-educational arguments. This also means that if a voter of fairness or education has been presented and conceded, I will adjudicate based on it even if it’s accidently not extended. I have no problem with other voters, for example jurisdiction, but I don’t assume them in the same sense (although the extension point still applies). Also, I tend to believe that advocacy skills and the like are standards not voters.

I will default to viewing theory as an issue of reasonability with the implication being to reject the argument. However, I think in almost every case where theory is being seriously debated, these issues are discussed in round and I will abide by which ever paradigms are won.

With regard to offensive counter-interpretations, I think the mere presence of words such as “must” or “may not” is not the determining factor, but rather whether there are arguments in the standards that support the plank of the interp that makes it offensive. In that sense, if it is artificially offensive, then it requires an RVI for me to vote on it.

I do not assume a RVI, but am happy to vote off one if it is won.


 * Speaks**

Arguments I would prefer not to hear that will most likely hurt your speaks:
 * Author indicts that talk about the character of your authors rather than their actual arguments (e.g. Kant was a racist)
 * Arguments that say you can run for/sign my ballot
 * Speed Ks
 * Frivolous theory to avoid the substance debate

What will definitely trash your speaks:
 * Blatantly offensive comments
 * Maliciously intended snide remarks
 * Insults to myself, your opponent, or anyone else


 * Miscellaneous**

I will default to presuming affirmative, but it is unlikely that the round will devolve to presumption unless you force it to that layer, at which point you should have made arguments about which way I should presume.

You can start off reading as fast as you want, and I will say clear or slow down if I can't understand you. That being said, if there are short, blippy or especially important arguments (tricks, plan/cp texts, theory interps), then it is in your best interest not to blaze through them.

I do not care if you sit or stand.

Do not be rude or offensive, but sass and sarcasm are enjoyable when done well.

Feel free to ask questions before or after the round, and I will do my best to answer them to your satisfaction.