Connolly,+Dillon

Name: Dillon Connolly Affiliation: Chaminade (NY)


 * Relevant Arguments**

I have no problem evaluating arguments under a truth-testing framework or a desirability framework. Just tell me why your framework is the best way to interpret/filter arguments and impacts in the round. As a general rule I do not enjoy rounds in which the majority of the time is spent on framework. Battling Util/Deont dumps are frustrating and boring to judge. I want to hear a debate ABOUT THE TOPIC. Framework should explain why your topical arguments are important they should not become the entire debate unless you are looking for terrible speaks. Contrary to popular belief I do not only want to hear util, I am fine with deont or any other argument. The problem I have is that in a lot of cases people who are running those frameworks spend 5:30 creating a narrow deontic framework filled with spikes and never actually get to talking about the topic throughout the entire round. I find that strategy infuriating.


 * Evidence**

I refuse to vote for unwarranted arguments. That said, I do not mind if you use analytic argumentation but I would prefer evidence. Simply put, I trust authors more than a high school debater, especially when it comes to empirical evidence. Questioning and examining evidence is a great way to bump your speaks.

**K's**

I will not hold debaters to a higher standard for running critical arguments. However, I must be able to understand the argument in order to vote for it. I am not familiar with most of the literature so debaters must be able to clearly explain their advocacy without assuming that I am already familiar with the arguments. Without an alternative most K's are just extremely non-unique disadvantages so, in almost all situations I suggest you have one. Also, I think a big problem with K's in LD is that they lack any framework or ballot story. Most K's offer a link, impact and alt without explaining what winning the K actually means. Is the K operating pre of post fiat? Why do those type of impacts matter? How does the K envision the role of the judge? Why am I as a judge able to vote on an argument that is not about the topic?

**Theory**

I think theory is a useful tool and is necessary to check abusive and educationally bankrupt practices but when it becomes something that is run every single round on both sides of an issue by certain debaters, I become more skeptical. When answering theory I prefer to see a developed counter-interpretation. Generating offense in a theory debate is absolutely essential. Answering theory with all defense on the standards level or a bunch of “fairness is not a voter” arguments is going to put you behind more often than not. To be clear, I think fairness and education are voting issues. To be honest all judges have biases in theory debates. There are some arguments (Apriori's, Severance, Multiple conditional counterplans, etc) that I am probably predisposed to vote against if theory is run. I will try to evaluate the debate as objectively as possible but it may be an uphill battle. Feel free to ask me what my feelings on certain practices are before the round.

**Speed** I do not have a problem understanding or in most cases flowing arguments delivered at a very fast rate. However, I prefer that speed be used to increase the quality of the arguments that are being made. I hate the kid who blazes through their NC but then runs out of things to say and either stops early or rambles about nothing for half of their speech. Also, if you are unclear I will yell clear. If you do not become clearer you will lose speaks and I may miss arguments that you are making.


 * Speaker Points**

30: Amazing. I think you are debating your positions better than anyone else at the tournament could. You could not only win this tournament but would have a chance to win any tournament in which you debated at the level you did in this round.

29: Fantastic. Very few people could do a better job at debating your position. You have a good shot at making it to late outrounds.

28: Good. You did what you had to do and did not have very many large mistakes. You should clear.

27: All right. You did an adequate job. You will be close to clearing but it could go either way.

26: Below Average. You should not clear.

25: Bad: You need major improvements in pretty much every aspect of debate. Your record should be below .500.

<25: Offensive or offensively bad. You either did something offensive (said something racist, sexist etc) or were so shockingly bad that I consider forcing me to judge you a hate crime.

I will not vote for the following arguments: - Moral Skepticism (or any argument that concludes that all actions are permitted/ can't be morally condemned). - Error Theory - Hard Determinism (Sorry, your L its predetermined) - A priori's without a developed justification for a truth testing paradigm - Theory counter interpretations that lack either a RVI or a reason they violate the interpretation - Saying obviously horrible things are actually good. For example: "Extinction is good," "Nuke war is good," "The Holocaust was good." - A "triggered" or "contingent" ethical framework (or lack thereof) that is not advocated in the first speech.

If you run these arguments you will lose.