Shane,+Jonathan

Updated: 11/17/11

Debated for - Taravella HS Pope HS 09 Georgia State U U of South Florida 13

Worked for - Marist HS Berkeley Prep HS

-This debate season will be my 7th year in debate as a participant, 4th as a judge and 3rd as a coach. I also spent the past two years working at the SDI (Michigan state) debate camp -I’ve cut multiple aff and neg arguments on the space topic and judged nearly 50 rounds on it (including debate camp rounds) so I’m fairly familiar with topical lit. However, I find there are a lot of acronyms and broad technological concepts that go unexplained in some rounds. Err on the side of safety and explain all the concepts involved in the arguments you’re making -As a debater I have been both a 2N and a 2A so I understand the difficulties and finer points of both positions. I’ve debated kritiks and policy arguments on both sides as well -As a typical college student, I don’t really care about professionalism. I won’t penalize you for cursing, making jokes, etc. However, you should be at least professional enough to be respectful of your opponents and concentrated on the round you’re debating in. -Speed is fine. I can competently flow even the fastest college debaters. However, I find I’m average (possibly below average) at flowing unclear speakers. If your speed comprises your intelligibility then please slow down -I <3 organization -I don't <3 prep time incompetence. If you're paperless, prep ends when the jump drive leaves your computer. No whispering to your partner or writing on your flows when prep is done. -I <3 analysis and clash, especially in the 2NR/2AR. How well you can draw warrants out of your evidence in these speeches is critically important to both how I decide the round and speaker points. An arguments that is cold-dropped by your opponents but extended without an explanation in your 2R will likely not be factored into my decision and leave my unhappy =( -That said, I understand some speeches (namely the 1AR) are often difficult to pack with deep analysis. My minimum requirement is that no analysis brought up in the last rebuttals are completely new. If 1AR analysis is shallow but at least explains the general idea of the warrants, that’s ok with me -I tend to read evidence more than most judges. I think evidence is an important part of the educational value of debate and I am happy to let the debaters use evidence as the major focus of the round as long as it’s explained and extended properly -I don’t allow any of my personal argument preferences to impact the way I evaluate different categories of arguments as a judge. If you feel most comfortable with a certain style (critical, policy, etc.) then that is what you should go for in front of me -Everything below is just a random collection of my thoughts on particular debate arguments. I can be persuaded to feel differently if you win an argument in the round. -Speaker points reflect the field, not every debater i've ever seen. I will have higher expectations in a TOC level varsity debate than a novice debate. Points reflect fluidity of speaking, ethos, depth of analysis and clash, strategic choices and creativity -Please feel free to ask questions before the round

Topicality -It’s important for both the aff and neg to isolate the terms in the resolution/plan text that are in contention. It seems like many T debates come down to nebulous interpretations for what the aff can/cannot do without explaining how this relates to the topic -I tend to err Aff on limits in regards to violations that aren’t grounded in the text of res (i.e. ASPEC) -Reasonability has become the most overused term in topicality debates. If you’re willing explain why I shouldn’t evaluate T in a competiting interps framework and why I should allow “reasonably topical” affs then please make these arguments clear. Otherwise, I’d prefer to just hear a debate where we assume interpretations are important -Standards should be evaluated as if they are impacts to a disad. Thus, analysis of how the aff/neg interp harms debate should prioritized at the top of speeches where you plan on doing a lot of analysis (namely, the block, 2NR and 2AR)

Framework -I enter the room without an expectation of what the framework should be. Performance is allowed as is traditional policy-only framework. It’s simply a question of whether or not you can explain why I should prefer your interpretation of what debate should be -Framework debates often become contrived and clash-less. If you chose to read an unconventional affirmative, I want to hear more than your offense but your answers to the neg’s framing and standards as well. This goes for both broad categories of framework

Kritiks -It’s important that the alternative is portrayed and explained as a solvency mechanism similar to that of a counterplan or 1AC plan text. I don’t sneer at the reject and rethink alt like most debaters. But with such approaches, the role of the ballot and the judge are critically important -I enjoy reading many of the philosophers that are used in critics but you should never assume that I automatically know what your author is talking about. A straightforward and laymen-ish explanation of what your argument says particularly if it’s complicated and vague (i.e. Baudrillard, Badiou, Lacan, Deleuze, Zupancic, etc.) -Even though I prefer to hear K specific argument, I think it’s important for both sides to take a stance on meta- issues like framework, the ethics of the plan/alt (i.e. realism vs. deontology), perm double-bind, etc.

Counterplans -To state the obvious: clearly explaining what the CP does, how much of the 1AC it solves, what aspect of the plan it competes on and how it garners a net benefit is important -Many CPs get away with murder in terms of competition. However I don't have a strong tendency to reject certain types of CPs (agent, PICs, etc) on face but only if there is a lack direct connection to the topic. For example, I am more likely to consider an XO CP with subverting politics as a net ben as abusive rather than one based on different agencies that implement space policy with a specific agency tradeoff DA or particular reason why your agency is more popular -One exception i typically find abusive is counterplans that compete solely on the nature of resolved/should/increase/etc. To steal a line from Will Repko's philosophy "If I speak this phrase: "I think we should walk to the store".... ...and you think this is mutually exclusive with the preceding sentence: "We should only walk to the store if armed gunmen do not line the path between here and the store" ... then I think we have very different conceptions of "mutually exclusive". I think the defining error of the modern debate era is to think that the Aff is somehow rigidly "certain" and that allowing such certainty to be suspended for *any* reason somewhat creates a positive curriculum." -CP Theory or condo are by no means unwinnable arguments in front of me. That said, I tend to lean towards reject the arg, not the team and I prefer to hear specific standards articulated as if they are impacts to a disad. Interps and counterinterps on theory are important as methods to justify a ballot on these issues -NEW - I've noticed this topic (space) is littered with CPs that don't have solvency advocates, multiple fiats, etc. I heavily lean Aff on the idea that all parts of the CP have to be advocated or at least proven possible by a piece of evidence.

DA/Politics -I'm a big fan of politics particularly disads with a highly specific link story with strategic benefit. I have a very high threshold for intrinsic arguments -Linear disads are difficult to win in front of me without some form of explicit impact framing that is external to the aff. I prefer DAs with a distinct brightline of uniqueness -Uniqueness determines the direction of the link, especially on ptx