Drucker,+Omri

I debated for 3 years [LD] in High School for Pine View School in Florida, and I debated policy for NYU. I was the assistant debate coach at Collegiate School. I'm currently a criminal justice researcher.


 * LINCOLN DOUGLAS: **

I try to intervene as little as possible in the round, but I actively try to counteract how I feel. Here's what I specifically look for.

**Framework**: I'm open to any framework format, be it just a "standards", a burden analysis, value / value criterion, and everything else under the sun as long as I am given clear reasons to evaluate the round using that. I like both substance reasons and theoretic reasons. Make sure to weigh back to your framework though. If you're going to have framework clash, make sure that that you give me substantive weighing.


 * Impacts**: I'm fine with most impacts as long as they link back to some evaluative standpoint, but make sure that if they're particularly big-stick impacts like extinction that you have well warranted internal links in your scenario. I'm receptive to analytic takeouts of poorly linked impact scenarios, so make sure that your link story is coherent and consistent. I really like impact calculus debates -- I also know I have a predisposition to weigh scope and probability over magnitude, but I actively try to counter-act that bias.


 * Philosophy:** These are just pet peeves and won't //really// influence my decision, but there are very clear distinctions between ethics, meta-ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology. Namely, the last 3 have very little to do with what is ethical. Please keep this in mind when you're writing your arguments or trying to make analytic arguments. That being said, I am a big fan of analytic philosophy and much less of a fan of continental philosophy. What that means is that I will totally on board if you use people like Chalmers, Street, Osuka, Hare, and so forth. I am much less on board if you pull out Hegel and start reading from his encyclopedia or if you just keep reading Heidegger cards or think that your Badiou, Deluze and Agamben K is the best thing ever. That being said, I do like interesting combinations of analytic and continental philosophy, but if your entire case is wrapped up in pomo you're just making things really hard for me to judge.


 * Kritiks:** Even though I'm not the biggest fan of continental philosophy / PoMo, I think that Ks are interesting and would like to listen to them, and even encourage them, **especially** if your opponent says problematic things in the round. That being said, there's a fine line between a securitization K or a non-violence K and a psycho-analytic Jungian K where you have to battle your Shadow. I don't like vague alts on Ks, so "reject" alts don't do a lot for me. I encourage running theory on these sorts of alts.

**Theory**: I don't default to any specific weighing mechanism if it isn't brought up. I think "strategic theory" is ok when there are some arguments that might be abusive, but if your violation is "her font is size 12 and not size 14" then I'm just going to auto-gut check on it, but that's really rare. "I meets" which are uncontested are terminal defense. A new application of "spirit of the interpretation" which is not brought up when the shell is presented will not be listened to. I don't default to competing interps or reasonability. I prefer drop the argument but if it is not clarified I will default to drop the debater. If you want to say "drop the argument" for strategic reasons, I'll be receptive to it. RVIs are fine. The only acception is if you admit to something like cheating or making up ev and then still trying to go for an RVI.
 * AFC**:

General notes: - I heavily penalize new arguments made in the last speech. It will generally cost you massive amounts of speaker points, and if the entire 2AR is new arguments, it will cost you the round. - Please don't call things //a priori//. It is a prestandard argument. The reason I prefer this is because sometimes when rounds get into epistemology everything gets very confusing. - I did college policy. Asking me about speed makes no sense. Go as fast as you want. - I don't vote on who speaks better, since this is a debate event. Don't try to go for speaking better or out speaking your opponent, because it won't work. - I evaluate speaker points on the criteria of originality, adaptability, clarity, and as a last ditch, persuasive ability. - I don't care if you curse, as long as it is kept to a moderate amount. Make sure that you're still respectful to your opponent. -You get two free "clears", after which I stop flowing and start docking speaker points. - I don't really like pref or narratives, but as long as it's topical, it's fine. If you read a non-topical narrative, I'll have to have very compelling reasons to vote on it.


 * POLICY:**

Paradigm: I'm pretty tabula rasa, and you can pretty much run whatever the hell pleases you, in any framework of interpretation of what debate is. I generally default to legislator or some sort of cliche; I'll vote like the plan is actually going to passed. I love me some simulations.

T: I don't really care what argument you make on T as long as it actually makes sense. Extra-topicality is fine too, but just make sure you're clear where the AFF is being extra-topical. I don't care much for topicality being the only thing debated on the flow, however. If you're going to go for T, make sure that there's something else to try to keep me interested, as I find T kind of stale. I generally won't pull the trigger on T unless you can actually prove a violation.

K: I'm a philosophy major and I find hearing different philosophical-type arguments very interesting, however, make sure you know what you're actually saying. I might be familiar with some of your authors, but because there is always more to read, I can't be sure. Don't assume I know what you're talking about, and more importantly, don't try to misrepresent what the author is saying. If you're talking about Otherization, make sure you identify who is being Otherized. It's pretty annoying to hear a long ramble about how the plan Otherizes and then there's no impact calculus defining who is being Otherized and why I should care. Kritical Affs are kinda weird sometimes, but I'm cool with them. Finally: When you extend your K, make sure you explain it in terms that I'll be able to flow. I don't care what it says in your pre-written overview or on your tagline, make sure I instantly know where you're going with the extensions.

CP: Any type of counter plan is fine with me, just make sure you clarify how it competes with the plan. I think PICs are fine as long as you don't read 3 and then make bad "condo good" arguments.

Theory: I'm open to all theory, and I'm fairly receptive to abuse stories, as long as they are clear. However, theory still needs to be explained coherently, and you need to say why your interpretation is better than your opponents. Saying why your theory is good is fine, but make sure to explain why theirs is bad.

Performance: I like topical preformance, but when you're reading a non-topical narrative, I don't really know what to do and probably won't evaluate it without very compelling reasons to do so.