Ehrlich,+Sol

Background:
I debated LD for 2 years on the national circuit (Jan 2011-Sept 2012) with Valley 2012 being my last debate tournament. I went to NDF for 4 weeks my junior year and TDC, NDF, and NSD for a total of 5 weeks my senior year. I stopped debating after Valley due to severe health issues that needed to be taken care of (But I'm all better now, so don't worry). In the small period of time that I debated, I reached a couple of bid rounds, cleared at most tournaments my junior year, and cleared at each tournament my senior year.

**General:**

Clay Spence, Martin Sigalow, and Michael Fried each played a significant role in teaching me the technical aspects of debate; this shaped the way I debated and I will likely judge similarly to them. I will vote off of any argument as long as it is warranted and the in-round implications are clearly articulated in each speech.

There are no styles of debate that I will exclude based off of my personal biases as I find that the more one tries to adapt, the less comfortable they become when debating. I want to foster a frienldy-competitive, educational environment in which no debater should feel uncomfortable debating in front of me. For example: As much as I despise util and LARP positions, I would rather see a good, substantive util debate than a blippy deontology or theory debate (and vice-versa). Also, check out the things that you can do for a 30, below.

__**Specifics:**__

**Speed:** **First,** Go as fast as you please while maintaining clarity. There were no debaters in my class that were too fast for me to flow, but some were too unclear or spoke too softly for me to flow. That being said, I will yell "clear" as many times as necessary or I will say "louder" as many times as necessary. **Note: If I am on an out rounds panel, I will limit myself to 3 times because I don't want to interrupt the other judges.**

**Second****,** I'm not perfect. No one is (except Eli Hymson). I will likely not be able to transcribe your case, so **PLEASE** slow down, emphasize, enunciate, jump up and down, whatever, etc. for author names, tags, where cards end and analytics begin, voting issues, and spikes. The last thing I want is for my RFD to consist of "I missed that argument" or "that wasn't labeled" or some other stupid thing that makes you want to punch me in the face and do 20 rebuttal re-dos.

**Framework:**

Thanks to debate, I have become very well read in the brilliant texts of analytic philosophy. Most of those philosophers were well ahead of their time and I always appreciate a good framework debate or a well-researched, topic specific framework with strategic outs in the contention level. I feel that I am a better evaluator of a dense meta-ethical framework debate than a util/larp debate because I spend a lot more time reading philosophy than I do politics.

Seriously, it's a little sad how little I know about current events (I get my news from watching the tv's at the gym). So run util stuff at your own risk or just be very good at weighing your impacts, because I was the kid who would strike every VBI instructor at tournaments. This **//does not//** mean that if you went to VBI, you should strike me. It's just a note that I am more confident in my abilities to evaluate the framework level of the debate than a util on util nuclear war-extinction debate.

**Theory:**

**First,** I will default to competing interps if no other method of evaluating theory is justified because my default assumption is to evaluate arguments based off of the flow, rather than gut-checking and intervening against theory. **But,** I am more than happy to hear the aff say "theory is reasonability" as a response to "aff must run util" or some other crappy time waster that negs will run these days.

**Second,** I prefer that if you're going to read offense to your opponent's shell, you read it under the text of a counter-interpretation. I will evaluate turns to your opponent's shell as offense under that interpretation and "functionally the counter-interpretation's standards", just make sure that you extend the internal links for why your opponents standard (i.e. Ground) is important for whatever voting issue you choose (i.e. fairness).

**Third,** I will evaluate an RVI if you have offense that links to a counter-interpretation. I feel that an "I meet" is terminal defense to the initial interp, and most paragraph-theory responses like "this shell is infinitely regressive" are mitigatory defensive responses, and don't merit a reason to vote for you on the **//theory debate.//** But if you win defense to theory under EITHER paradigm, competing interps or reasonability, I am more than happy voting on the substance of the debate or wherever there is clear offense.

**Fourth,** I will vote off of meta-theory before theory because it tells me how I should evaluate theoretical arguments as the norms for debate. I just think that if you are going to do this, you should provide a good warrant for why your opponent's violation of your meta-theory shell merits them losing the round.

**Fifth,** If you run meta-meta theory, I will walk out of the room, cry loudly, and bang my head against a wall.

**Sixth,** I will vote off of rule skep takes out theory if it's run well and your winning your justifications for why skepticism is true. **Also,** **I WILL** vote off of **Fairness is not a voter or disclosure theory if they are run strategically.**

**Skepticism:**

**First,** I think moral skepticism is a vast, dynamic area of moral philosophy that has always been captivating to me. There are many versions of skepticism that have yet to be used in debate, and if you run one that I have never heard before than I will reward you with good speaker points. My favorite versions of skepticism are the ones that inherently prove an ethical theory false. I like skepticism as a reason to justify a particular framework even better.

**Second,** do **NOT EVER, EVER, EVER** make the argument that skepticism justifies the Holocaust. As a Jewish person, not only do I find this argument offensive and moronic, **it's logically false**. **1.** No one is acting the action of the resolution, the contention level offense that your opponent would be using is just a strategy to prove the resolution false. **2.** If the case is so discursively unsound, you should be able to wreck it on the substance level. **3.** If it isn't permissible to question moral convention, then you are setting the precedent for the discursive wrongs that you talk about. **4.** Using this cheap trick to get my ballot trivializes those who suffered at the hands of the Nazi regime.

**Third,** make sure you answer your opponent's framework. If they are winning their ethical theory than they disprove skepticism. Also, make sure that it's very clear to me which way skepticism goes, because I hate defaulting.

**Fourth,** if you say that determinism means you are determined to do something, and then you do something weird and creative, I will reward you with speaker points. If say say that skepticism means everything is permissible, you CAN sign the ballot. But shortly thereafter I will cross-out your signature because remember, I can do anything I want also.

**Permissibility/Presumption:**

**LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!**

**KRITIK'S:**

**First,** I never saw kritk's enough to form an opinion on them. From what I've seen I don't think I should have a problem evaluating them differently from any other argument made in debate. I will reward a unique K with good speaks, but I will need a little persuasion to vote off of a micro-political position.

**Second,** you need a real alternative that has impacts that function as offense to a framework, with some type of justification for that framework that you are using. I will not assume a framework for you. **Also,** whatever literature you are using should be explained coherently with links in either/both the AC and/or CX. I am not going to pretend like I understand something when I don't, because that would be unproductive for just about everybody.

**Speaker Points:**

Some people are point fairies. I am **THE POINT FAIRY,** like if you put your AC under your pillow I'll give you a quarter. But seriously though, I will try to give high speaker points. If you are technically proficient at debate, speak clearly, generally make good arguments, are polite, and overall enjoyable to watch, you should get at least a 29. I will give higher points at tournaments where not all 4-2's or 5-2's clear, and I will automatically give a 30/29.5 in the last round of prelims to make sure that both of you are highly seeded in out rounds.

**Below is a list of things that get you an automatic 30:**

1. If you watch //Supernatural// (I will quiz you so don't lie to me) 2. If you bring me pizza from The Upper Crust 3. If you come from a big school and you admit to me that you didn't write your AC/NC or your pre-flows. (Not to say that you automatically didn't write your case if you are from a big school, but **//rather//** if you did not write your case it is likely that you are from a big school which is why I used that example). 4. If you are a very experienced debater hitting a novice in a pre-set; guide them very nicely and slowly explain your arguments to them to help them learn from the experience. 5. Not giving a 2AR if you've won by the 1AR. 6. If you make me laugh more than 3 times. 7. If you make fun of Carlton Bone in your speech. 8. If you ask me about my day or ask me questions about myself. 9. If you write an AC with only analytics; no cards or citations in any way whatsoever. 10. If your opponent has a standard of "maximizing life" and you run a counter plan that solves the aff by saying people should have more…. you get the idea. 11. You defeat an outrageously abusive position without running theory. 12. If you use skepticism to justify an ethical theory.

**Things that will automatically get you an automatic 25 at best. (In other words here are things that warrant docking speaker points):**

1. If you are texting on your phone during my RFD. You **//really//** can't wait the 5 minutes to text whoever, and it **//just happens//** to be while **//I am//** speaking? Really? 2. You talk to me like I'm a lay judge and try to "link into the value" and assert that "you have clearly won the debate today" because you say so like a PFer. Nothing makes me more angry. 3. You say "I strongly urge you to vote for the Pro" Really? Really? No more comments on this one. 4. You lie in CX about your advocacy or in the 2AR. 5. If you disregard everything in my paradigm. 6. If you are an experienced debater and go 5 off against a novice. 7. If you don't allow your opponent to ask you questions in CX. 8. If you are just generally rude.

Lastly, if you have any questions you are more than welcome to e-mail me at sol32995@yahoo.com. Have fun everyone!!!!!!!!!!