Goree,+Sam

Hi, my name is Sam Goree, I graduated from Bronx Science in 2013, I'm now a sophomore comp sci/music major at Oberlin College in Ohio. I don't plan on judging very often, so I may be less familiar with the latest circuit trend (and unable to flow as well as I once did) by the time I judge you. At this point (Bronx '14), I haven't judged in almost a year and am a little out of practice.

Debate however you want to in front of me, I won't (openly) discriminate against things that annoy me. I haven't flowed in a while, so excessive speed may be problematic. I was mostly a philosophy/framework debater in high school, but I messed around with larping and theory a bit. I will try to be tab and not intervene, but much of the time, rounds get really muddled and I will be forced to sort things out myself. If you don’t want me to do that, make good argument comparison and weighing. If you don’t weigh, I will end up intervening in some way. I will not call evidence unless there is dispute over its meaning/authenticity.

Theory: If you can win the round without it, don't run it. That's not to say I won't enjoy a good theory debate, if you run smart, well nuanced theory in an appropriate situation (i.e. there is some aspect of the AC framework that makes it impossible to construct any negative framework or turn without the universe imploding and knowledge becoming meaningless, then you run a shell that pinpoints the aspect of the AC that creates the problem and suggests (through the interp) a simple way the function of the AC framework could be changed to avoid creating the situation), then you can very well still get a win and/or a 30, but it's not likely. Also, don't go all in on theory at any point in the round, chances are I'll throw out theory as a wash and look to substance, and if you ignore substance entirely in the NR, then I'll take any substantive argument in the 2AR over presumption (and vice versa).

Theory spikes at the top of the AC (or at the bottom, or, even worse, in the middle) that aren't immediately relevant to the case itself tend to be less effective than you would think. If you have a version of your AC with fewer spikes, it might be a better idea in front of me.

I don't like to presume. Don't make me presume. If I presume and you and your opponent only make arguments I've heard/made a thousand times (presume aff because of neg time bias, presume neg because aff speaks last, etc.) I'll probably just flip a coin.

Some other stuff:
 * IRL, I tend to be more of a math/science person. You will piss me off if you use science stuff (quantum physics, evolutionary biology, neurology, etc.) incorrectly, though.
 * Philosophy is good. I like framework debates if they are well explained. I really like Nietzsche and will reward you with speaks if you run him well. Do not try to confuse your opponent, though. I will evaluate your arguments based on how you articulate them, not how I understand them outside of the round.
 * Impact scenarios are generally really interesting, especially if you develop/engage them on the internal link level.
 * K debates are usually very interesting and very good, as long as they are articulated really well in CX and extensions. Extemporaneous K-like arguments about language, etc. are fine as long as they have role of the ballot arguments. K before theory works too.
 * I really don’t like trick debate; don’t try to fool your opponent. If you are being taken advantage of by your opponent, run theory and I will probably vote on it, even if it’s new NR/2AR theory, as long as the abuse only became apparent in the speech before it.
 * Don’t call arguments turns if they aren't turns, this is just a pet peeve of mine. I will evaluate them, but I will like you less and probably drop your speaks if you do it too often.
 * Don't be an asshole in CX, please. You're a person, your opponent is a person, I'm a person, we don't want nonsense answers or aggressive behavior. CX is binding, don't lie.

Speaks are subjective. Basically, debate in a smart, technically proficient manner that utilizes the strategic value of cleverly made, well-constructed arguments and give me clear argument comparison to get a 29.5+ from me. If you offend me considerably, I will dock speaks. I will disclose speaks if you and your opponent agree. Unless you really screw up, I don't plan to give below a 25.

I reserve the right to change my paradigm in-round if the need arises (i.e. I'm tired and don't want to have to switch back and forth between lots of spreadsheets).

Written for Woodward '13 Updated for Bronx '13