Rosenblum,+Matthew

Matthew Rosenblum FSU Debate Policy Debate Judging Philosophy/Lincoln Douglas 2008


 * General Banter**- I think that debate is a game. I like fun games. I like intense games. Do with this what you will. That said, I default to a game-playing paradigm in LD, so any goes, so long as you justify it. However, I will accept alternative paradigms (hypo-tester, tabula rasa, policy-making, etc.) if told do so.


 * Theory**- I think for a game to work, and to be fun it should probably have rules. I have a pretty good idea as to what those rules should be- at least from my perspective; however I ultimately think that debaters make the rules. And so while I might have my own personal views on conditionality you debaters will be the ultimate arbiters of whether or not conditionality (or any other theoretical issue) is legitimate. While you're free to make the rules to your game, I do however ask that you not dump a theory block at 500 words per minute. Slow down on the theory debate, and if you're going for theory know that I will vote on it but you need to impact your theory arguments. Because arguments in LD and policy are often times confused, don't assume I know how to vote on any specific type of argument. For example, RVI's are run less often in policy than in LD so you need to explain to me why winning X issue of the theory debate wins you the round.


 * Topicality**- I'm not a big fan of these sorts of debates, both as a debater and as a judge. If I had the capital I would probably pay debaters exorbitant amounts of money not to go for topicality; however I realize that this activity is about strategy and barring some terrible cognitive accident that usurps my ability to accurately adjudicate these debates, I will. With that said I believe topicality is about competing interpretations and that for the negative to win a T debate the negative needs a clear interpretation, that the affirmative doesn't meet, that is better than the affirmative's interpretation, and a good reason I should vote for the "better" interpretation. I think that the idea of kritiking topicality is cool in theory but in practice usually makes for some pretty sub par argumentation


 * Disadvantages**- Despite what many people think that I think about the activity, these debates are actually pretty fun to judge. I love unique disadvantage debates. Many judges that ally myself with ideologically find disadvantage/politics debates to be contrived; however after a while in the activity I'm pretty sure a lot of what we discuss is rather contrived, meaning that I don't understand why a disadvantage story about cow flatulence is any more contrived then speaking in heady postmodern verbiage.


 * Counter plans**- This is another area where what people think about how I view debate and how I actually view debate differ. Despite the fact that I haven't run a counter plan in a very long time I definitely see the strategic and pedagogical utility of these arguments. I personally believe that if the negative gets any fiat at wall, they at the most get as much fiat as the affirmative. With that said my one theoretical proclivity is that I'm not a fan of conditionality; however everything is indeed up for debate.


 * Kritik**- YEAAHHHH MAN! As a philosophy major I hold these types of arguments very close to my heart. I read a fairly large amount of kritikal literature; however that does not mean that if you speak in critical buzzwords that I will automatically vote for you (since I will then probably vote affirmative). I love Zizek, but merely saying "we encircle the real better then the affirmative" probably wont get you anywhere close to a negative ballot. I like Cap debates, Nietzsche, Baudrillard, and arguments critical of debaters discourse. But honestly I'm down with whatever you want to do.

General LD guidelines: a. I do policy, not LD, so explain the function of arguments clearly. Tell where to vote, how to vote on it, and why. That said, I competed in a few rounds of LD at the end of my high school career, so I am familiar with the traditional value/value criterion method of proving a case. b. Any framework is acceptable, just warrant why I should prefer the framework. c. Speed is not an issue; go as fast as you want, but slow down on tags and the names of authors to avoid any possible confusion. d. A-priori's/pre-standards: I am not a huge fan of these arguments following the Jan-Feb topic on corporation last year and the extent to which "pre-standards" arguments were unjustifiably run. However, I won't vote you down for running the argument, nor will I intervene in any way if you run them; I just prefer more "substance" e. Debate in any method you prefer, if you like to dance, then do so. If you turn the LD round into a policy round with policy arguments, my decision calculus may be easier to decipher and slightly more coherent. f. Everything is an argument, I will not exclude anything from the round; don't make me do the work for you. g. Cross-applications: I beleive these are central to debating the substance of case arguments, as long as they aren't totally new in the 2a/2n, I will have no problem evaluating these arguments. If you have any other questions just ask in round.