Steirn,+Robbie

Conflicts: Cypress Bay High School

I competed for Cypress Bay for 4 years, made it to the toc once and accumulated 7 toc bids.

My main view is that I believe that debate is a space to be used by the debaters to have their voices heard and that my role as the judge is to evaluate what is said and determine who I think did the “better” debating. It is up to the debaters to determine what “better” means in a particular round. So, I will evaluate any argument as long as it has a claim warrant impact.

I default that the resolution is a statement of truth. The aff burden is to prove the resolution true, and the negs burden is to prove the resolution false. My default is thrown out when a debater makes an argument for an alternative view. (comparative worlds, best justification.)

Some Basic views:
 * Speed: ** Go as fast as you want or as slow as you want. I don't care as long as you are clear. You should pause at the end of a card and before you read the next tag so I can differentiate arguments.


 * Spikes: ** there fine with me, read them. But, spikes are usually very short and blippy so go slower than usual for them and it would be smarter for you to put them at the end of the case when I am used to your tone and speed.


 * Skep: ** Read it if you want, I like it. In the first speech of reading skep it should be implicated to whether it triggers permissibility or presumption. skep is a lack of moral rules, so I enjoy when after you read a skep card you say why it also takes out your opponents framework.


 * Theory: ** Read it, i think that theory is a necessary check on abusive positions and strategies. I don't know what reasonability is so I will default to competing interps. you can read reasonability but when you do you need to tell me what counts as a reasonable interpretation.I do not gut check because that requires intervention. I dont care if the shell is 4 pointed or paragraph form as long as it prescribes the rule for debate, a violation, a reason to prefer the interpretation, and a voter with drop argument/debater/competing interps/reasonability. I default that in order for a debater to win on theory they need offense to a counter-interpretation and an RVI. Remember, my defaults go away when arguments are made in the round so you can say why offensive counterinterps are a reason to vote. I will vote on a 2ar RVi against 2nr theory.


 * Policy Arguments: ** I read these arguments sometimes. Weighing is key especially for this type of debate.


 * Presumption/ Permissibility. ** I do not default to either side on these issues. I will vote on these arguments when the debaters tell me to. The debates between risk of offense and terminal defense are usually aweful!!!!!! So, when you read arguments you should implicate how it functions (mitigatory, terminal defense, or offense)


 * Micropol/kritiks. ** this is what I did my entirity of junior year. I will vote on them but I feel that most k's have problems because they need to link into a fw and they need to have roll of the ballot unless they function on a post-fiat layer. I am unfamiliar with continental philosophy, so slow down when reading it.


 * Prefiat V Postfiat: ** Martin Sigalow says it perfectly “ Claiming that fairness not being a voter or skepticism or determinism or something means you can do whatever you want and attempt to sign the ballot or smash your opponents laptop (Berkely 2011) is unacceptable. This is more often than not a way of coercing people who run these types of arguments using threats of force to give up some vital part of their argument. In the same way that I dont expect debaters go to africa and solve AIDS the minute they run consequentialism, I do not hold debaters responsible for random prefiat implications of postfiat arguments. If you do the above, even if they give in and concede some aspect of their argument, you will receive speaker points that will be no bueno. If you collapse the prefiat postfiat distinction and then use the contradiction that arises as a means of rejecting the argument, then I will evaluate it like any other defensive argument.”


 * Speaks: ** I determine speaks based of overall strategy. Getting me food before the round will get you better speaks (chips and a coke) You will get high speaks when you are controlling the line by line debate with a comparison of arguments and are giving overviews on how to evaluate arguments. Low speaks occur when you are being offensive.