Poker,+Andy

Paradigm for Andy Poker LD Debater in High School for Apple Valley for 4 years - graduated 1998 LD Coach for Apple Valley for 4 years starting fall of 1998. Involvement in the LD community (judging for Apple Valley, TOC Coaching help, etc) until present.

While I never would have imagined it when I was a coach or debater, I would probably describe myself these days as a dinosaur. There was a time when I would have described my paradigm as "do whatever you want, just be sure to justify it with well reasoned warrants" as my philosophy, and in many ways I think that is still true, but having seen what gets run in front of me when I say that, I almost always hate it, so I don't want to leave you with that impression. I'm generally okay with whatever you want to do, but if you get up and read a laundry list of poorly warranted crap and then expect me to vote for you, I think you will be disappointed. If your poorly warranted crap has cards without warrants, that won't make it any less crappy in my eyes. I judged in out-rounds at TOC two years ago and pretty much all of my oral critiques were that I thought the rounds were awful and I told people as much. Maybe that was just a bad year, but it was also my last circuit judging experience - so take that for what its worth.

One thing I really hate and can't imagine voting for is case positions that could be run no matter what the resolution was. I promise you that, even if your opponent concedes in the round, if you do that, I will give you the loss. Please do not do that.

So, why don't we get down to some details. I'm fine with stock or traditional arguments. I don't fundamentally have a problem with plans and think this topic leans policy, but I'm perfectly willing to listen to reasons why they should be rejected too. I'm not against all critical arguments, but in general I probably am not the best judge to go that route in front of. I get pretty frustrated if you spew off really complex continental philosophy with warrants that, if they are there, take 20 minutes of reading to drag out of the card.

I'm willing to listen to theory arguments, but going all-in on these should be done at your own peril. It should be relevant to your opponent's case. A good way to throw away the round is to just run 10 a priori arguments as a neg that are language criticisms of the resolution. I think that is really dishonest as far as addressing the question of the resolution is concerned.

As for standards, I expect that the debaters will either propose a standard/framework for the round or accept their opponents. That framework must, in the current resolution (2008 TOC), provide a mechanism for evaluating if an action is Just. Then, ya know, using it would be cool. If you choose to go value/criterion or framework or whatever, I couldn't care less, just so long as you provide a standard for weighing arguments.

Presentation: Don't really care - I just need to be able to understand you. Sit down, stand up, whatever. I likely won't even look up during the round. That said, please note the Speed point below.

Speed: I used to say go as fast as you want so long as you are clear, but to be honest, I'm out of practice flowing. Just remind yourself at the start of every speech and at 30 second intervals during your speech that you are going too fast - this is TOC, I'm out of practice, so it is probably true, and you need to Slow Down. I can handle fast LD pace based on 1998 standards - I cannot flow policy. If I can't follow what you are saying, I'm happy to shout something out to give you fair warning. If I have no idea what you said, I'll likely treat it like you never said it at all - consider yourself warned.

If you find yourself saying things like "You can't close the political space" or other such gibberish, you should almost certainly strike me.