Schifberg,+Jeremy

I debated for three years at South Eugene high school and continue to stay involved as a coach in the Chicago area as well as an instructor at the Victory Briefs Institute. I will generally look to the standard first to begin evaluating the round, unless there are explicitly articulated pre-standards issues – in which case their function in the round should be well articulated and justified. I’m willing to vote off of most anything, as long as it is well justified and there is some sort of evaluative calculus given. Speed is usually not a huge problem but I’m not the most incredible flower in the world, so it’s on the debater to make sure to pay attention to whether or not I’m keeping up – slowing down slightly for the most important arguments you really want flowed is probably a good idea. Regarding “critical” arguments or authors: I’m likely not intimately familiar with the argument or literature so it’s on the debater to clearly explain everything if they want me to vote on it. I won’t vote for something that hasn’t been clearly explained or I don’t feel I understand, but if it is sufficiently explained and justified I’ll vote on it. When it comes to theory, I'm much more inclined to listen to theory arguments used as a means of perferring one framework over another. I'm much less inclined to vote for theory as a reason to reject a debater -- for me to do so the argument has to be very well-justified (not a 15 second blip) and the violation should be clear and significant. In short, tell me what to do, tell me how/where to vote and tell me how the arguments in the round should be evaluated and how they interact with one another (i.e. weighing, etc.).