Tagher,+Maximilian

Background:
College: NFA-LD (1-1 policy) 3 years for WKU (NFA Semifinals 2011) High School: LD, Congress

Public Forum:
Judging experience: Several tournaments at WKU (low-level), TOCs 2011 Despite my background, I don't think PF is policy; e.g. last year I intervened against a switch-sides K. I feel most uncertain about framework/definitional debates in PF, so I would want you to be more explicit about how I should evaluate this. Act as if you're convincing an intelligent person and avoid rhetorical flair/posturing. I love evidence comparison and especially methodology comparison. Winning my ballot is more about establishing a coherent explanation of the world than extending a specific argument.

Policy:
My policy judging philosophy is a modification of Chad Meadows' judging philosophy. As a baseline, policy debate is about proving the resolution true. All arguments (when first presented) should be coherent thoughts: "there's no brink," "vote here for reasons of fairness and education", etc. are too vague and incomplete and will be disregarded.

1 -Evidence
Debate should be a referendum on the quality and quantity of research done first, and then a matter of execution later. I think evidence is VERY important, its quality and qualifications should be debated.

2 - Speed/Flowing
I think my flow is only decent--as a reference point, I can flow 'the beatdown' easily. If speaking at a more rapid rate is used to advance more scholarship in the round, I encourage debaters to speak quickly. If speaking quickly devolves into assaulting the round with a barrage of bad arguments in the hope that your opponent will not clash with them all, my ballot and speaker points will not encourage this practice. An argument is not “true” because it is extended on one sheet of paper if it is logically answered by evidence, on another sheet of paper or later on the line by line. You can check your rhetorical bullying at the door. Posturing or e.g. insisting that I will "ALWAYS vote here" are probably a waste of your time.

3 - Argument Selection
Any argument that advances argument on the desirability of the resolution through valid decision making is persuasive. The source of argumentation should be left up to the debaters. I have very little experience with kritiks but am amenable to kritiks that seek to prove or disprove the resolution.

Specific Issues:
1 - Topicality is a voter and not a reverse voter. "Proving abuse" is irrelevant because it is not a logical reason to vote on topicality, well explained standards are not. 2 – The affirmative does not have to specify more than is required to affirm the resolution. I encourage Affirmatives to dismiss specs/vagueness and other procedurals without implications for the topicality of the affirmative with absolute disregard. 3 – Conditionality is logical, restraints on logical decision making are only justified in extreme circumstances. 4 – There is nothing implied in the plan. Consult, process, and other counterplans which include the entirety of the plan text are not competitive. 5 – I will decide if the counterplan is competitive by evaluating if the permutation is better than the counterplan alone or if the plan is better than counterplan. Ideological, philosophical, and redudancy standards for competiton are not persuasive and not useful for making decisions. 6 – Agent, International, etc. CPs are possibly legitimate--their theoretical legitimacy should be grounded in who the decision maker should be. I am most persuaded that they are irrational because an agent must consider the probability that other agents will act: the USFG can't choose to have Japan act instead. 7 - I prefer topicality arguments with topic specific interpretation and violation evidence. 8 - I strongly believe intrinsicness to be rational and would enjoy seeing it debated. I have extensive experience with the theory literature base.

You can read more about what I believe here http://hackingdebate.wordpress.com/

LD:
Experience: Judged LD at several KY tournaments. I am largely inexperienced with LD. Honestly, I think about it as "policy with values." I have not had experience with national circuit LD.

Update: It is crucial that I am able to comprehend arguments to vote for them. Especially if you use terms of art, you may need to explain them straightforwardly. Your speech should be comprehensible--use pauses in natural places and when transitioning between arguments, avoid double breathing. Speed is fine when used to advance scholarship.

This quote is probably good advice in front of me: "The only real guidance I can provide here is, be smart. And that is smart smart, not strategic smart. Is strategic ambiguity strategically advantageous? Sure, but probably to the dearth of my comprehension. I would rather understand, in fact require comprehension, to you tricking the other team into “dropping” some 3 second blip that somehow fundamentally makes irrelevant the rest of the debate. Extend your argumentative reasoning. Compare your reasoning to the opposition’s reasoning. Crystalize, compare and weigh in the final rebuttals."

Congress:
Experience: Coached Congress at FFI 2011, judged TOC 2011 Finals Sponsor/Authorship Speeches: I prefer these speeches to be as much informative as persuasive. I consider this an important role and will give weight to it to counterbalance my rewarding debate in later speeches. Speeches should as much as possible reflect a deep, nuanced understanding of the literature base. Typically I don't lift my head from what I'm writing down. I am not very critical of presentation, unless I notice it distracting from the content. I don't have preferences on how speeches should be constructed. I think causality is under-debated in Congress.