Whitfill,+Parker

Note for Glenbrooks 2017: haven’t been invovled in debate since this summer, so I’m not super familiar with the topic and might need you to go a bit slower near the beginning of the tournament.

Hey y’all. I’m currently a first year at UChicago--I debated 4 years of LD for PCDS. I qualified to the TOC twice and won it my senior year.


 * __General__**
 * I no longer hold any strong views on debate. I’ll vote on any warranted argument (as long as it’s not offensive like impact turns to racism). I’ll do my best to evaluate whatever you want to do.
 * my flows were always a bit disorganized, please signpost well.
 * prep ends when you’ve assembled the speech doc
 * I’ll default to whatever evaluative paradigm is assumed by both debaters. If that is unclear, I’ll default truth-testing.
 * I strongly prefer that you weigh in the first speech that you have access to both impacts e.g. Disad’s should be weighed against the aff in the 1nc itself and standards on T should be weighed in the 1ar. I won’t categorically ignore weighing done in later speeches, but I’ll grant it much less weight.
 * low threshold for extensions, especially for the aff.
 * I’ll say clear and slow as many times as I have to.
 * The rest of this paradigm will just be quirks about how I judge and what arguments I feel most comfortable evaluating for the sake of prefs. Reading arguments I’m comfortable with won’t give you higher speaks or increase your chances of winning. I’m only including this so you know what layers I am most qualified to judge.


 * __Theory__**
 * Probably the layer I’m most comfortable evaluating. I like a good theory debate.
 * Feel free to read theory as a strategic tool or to check abuse.
 * I’ll evaluate out of round violations absent arguments to the contrary.
 * default text over spirit, competing interps, drop the arg on theory (unless it’s impossible to drop the arg, then drop the debater), drop the debater on T and no RVIs.
 * If you want me to treat a theory shell as preclusive to another shell then your weighing must warrant that, otherwise I’ll default to size of link weighing. For example, “meta-theory indicts the original interp and thus size of link can't fairly be evaluated” warrants why I should evaluate meta-theory lexically prior, but most “neg abuse outweighs aff abuse” arguments are just weak magnitude weighing.
 * I won't vote on new 2AR RVIs or new 2AR theory that's drop the debater.
 * I guess I'll default presume aff, but I would be very surprised if I ever presumed.


 * __Consequentialism__**
 * I’m very comfortable evaluating these debates be it extinction or soft left.
 * I’m impressed when you know the methodology of your studies (sample size, scope, time frame etc). I find methodological comparison to be persuasive, and your speaks will go up if you do it.


 * __Philosophy/Framework__**
 * I like academic philosophy a lot, but I didn’t read a ton of framework as a debater. Take that as you will.
 * I'm probably a good judge for any analytic philosophy (think Util, Rawls, Korsgaard, Hobbes, etc) but not so good for continental philosophy (think Deleuze, Inoperative Community, etc).
 * I think framework often interacts with the K and should be utilized there more.
 * Default ethical modesty for phil


 * __K’s__**
 * Probably the layer I’m least qualified to judge. I feel comfortable on most stock K’s and pessimism K’s but am less comfortable judging more complex stuff so make sure to over explain.
 * Default theory comes before the K
 * Default epistemic modesty for ROTB


 * __Tricks__**
 * I’ll vote on it as long as it’s warranted and I flow it.
 * I won’t be happy if your tricks are hidden- if you are going to read a 10 priori’s, be up front about it
 * It’s a well-kept secret that I find truth-testing to be persuasive (just ask Katherine Fennell)


 * __Speaks__**
 * Speaks are a reflection of technical skill, strategic vision and how easy you are to flow
 * + 0.1 speaks if you make a good joke about deep dish pizza. And another +0.1 if you figure out who actually wrote this last part.
 * If all you do is read, I will be sad, and you will be sad when you see your speaks.