Arfin,+Avi

Short version: I’ll vote for just about anything that’s warranted.

Long version: Background: I debated LD 3 years at Palo Alto High School in CA. I enjoyed some success both in persuasive and technical styles of debate. I now attend Yale University.

Truth Testing/Comparative worlds: I am open to either paradigm (or any other) if it is justified. If neither paradigm is specifically articulated as the one I should look to, I will try to use the paradigm that both debaters seem to be impacting to. If they are impacting to different paradigms and not doing work explaining why either is better, I will use the paradigm the affirmative seems to be impacting to (putting the burden of clash on the negative). That is NOT to say that I will default to the aff paradigm – if the neg makes arguments why their paradigm should be adopted, even if the aff has 100% defense, I wont default to the aff paradigm. As long as there is debate on this level, I will wade through it to see what paradigm I should use.

Framework: I’m happy to use any type of framework, as long as you (1) justify it’s use and (2) show me how to evaluate offense under it (or if offense doesn’t exist how do I evaluate the round more generally). I’m happy to use the value/criterion structure, a burdens structure, or anything else. Just be absolutely sure you’re telling me something about how to evaluate the round. Absent a clear standard, I’ll probably vote on net benefits, but that may change based on the topic. Ask before the round if you want to know how I feel about it on any given topic.

Theory: I do not understand why we hold debaters to higher standards when they are justifying using the ballot as a micropolitical tool than when they try to use the ballot for theory. In both cases, they essentially ask us to abandon substance because there is something bigger going on. So I have a pretty high threshold for theory. All of the internal links had better be there, and you really should have a solid voter. You should also definitely explain why theory comes before substance. I am probably much more receptive than most to “fairness not a voter”, or at least to “the small decrease in fairness is not enough to justify the harms of not voting on substance”. That said, I don’t think fairness should only be used to check abuse. It definitely has its place as a strategic tool, and I’m happy to vote for it as such. I just think that there are benefits to debating the topic, and you should be prepared to defend why we are no longer doing so, just as you would if you asked me to vote on discourse. I default to reasonability, but I am very open to arguments for competing interps. I am pretty receptive to most responses to theory, including RVI’s and Ks of theory (see section on K’s). Unless you give me a reason why my role as a judge extends beyond the purview of this round, I am unlikely to vote on things that aren’t connected to the round (e.g. they didn’t disclose last round so punish them now). That said, I can definitely be convinced that my role does extend beyond this round.

Kritiks: I am happy to vote on them if you justify my ballot, just like any other argument. I don’t consider myself very well versed in pomo literature, so I’m probably not going to really get it if you blaze through it all. That’s not to say I won’t vote on it, but I’ll be confused. If you’re a helpful answerer in CX however, my confusion level will be lowered significantly. It is your job to be clear in both the constructive and every rebuttal, and it is your job to explain to me the project from the basics – don’t assume I know what “the signified” or geneology or anything else is.

A prioris: Maybe because I wasn’t around during the height of their use, I don’t really have a problem with them. I will vote for them. I am open to theory against them, and I’m open to theory defending them. Just be sure you slow down or get louder or something to indicate that this is in fact an a priori issue. Your speaks won’t drop from using an a priori, but they will heavily drop if you try to hide it.

Plans/CPs/DAs/other policy args: These are fine. Everything in LD came from CX at some point, and really every neg argument is a DA and every aff arg is an advantage

Weighing: This is just really important. Don’t forget to do it please. The earlier the better.

Narratives/Micropolitics/Performance/whatever: These are also fine. I ran them myself. In fact, I will probably enjoy getting away from the monotony of most rounds. If you run it well, I will probably reward your speaker points (more than running a stock argument well). However, don’t assume that just because I ran a non-traditional position I have a low threshold for voting for them. In fact, because I am used to them, I probably have a higher threshold for abandoning a traditional framework. If you run it poorly, I will probably really not like the position, and lower your speaks.

Speed: I’m not that great of a flower, so I can probably handle your speed, but please please please slow way down for anything you want me to get the exact wording of (author names, standard, burden, important definitions, etc). I will call clear a maximum of twice and louder a maximum of three times. Beyond that, your on your own. While I’m perfectly fine with the practice of speed, it really bugs me when people use it just to confuse opponents. If you have 7 fast minutes worth of arguments, go fast. If you have 5 fast minutes worth of arguments, go a little slower. I will dock speaks if you go fast and have time left over.

Evidence calling: I’m willing to call evidence if I think I should and will always if you tell me to.

Speaks: I view these as my domain where I don’t really need a specific calculus: sorry. (This also means please don’t ask me how you can get a 30: I don’t know until I see it)

Other: I don’t care if you sit or stand. I don’t care if you use flex, as long as you ask each other first.

Most importantly: Don’t be a jerk. I will be really ticked off and this is probably the only way you can get less than a 25 from me.