Keener,+Adam

//**What is your judging** **philosophy?**//

To me, the purpose of debate is to hone and develop argumentative skills - this includes rhetoric, understanding fallacious reasoning, and legitimate conversation between both sides. What you learn in debate should be applicable to real-world dialectics, informal argumentation, and careers with high levels of public speaking, such as politics, law, and academia.

I most agree with the //tabula rasa// style of judging. I attempt to come into a debate with no assumptions.


 * //What do you think about speed?//**

Because of my philosophy, I do not like the tactic of "spreading" - I find it to emphasize high quantities of low-quality, surface level analyses, instead of small numbers of high-quality, deep analyses that are the norm (and more respected) in careers focusing on argumentation. I expect the only the strongest arguments to be used, and if you spread poor arguments that are shown to be easily flawed or rebutted, I will take that into account. Likewise, I expect counter-arguments to be of the same caliber. Debate is a form of communication, and thus must be presented at a speed that allows for full integration. I find that argumentation that focuses on speed comes off as shallow, insincere, and careless.

//**What about counterplans/permutations?**//

__Absolutely__ allowed. Counterplans can be a reason to vote for the negative if they are competitive and give some reason to reject the affirmative. However, permutations that show counterplans to not be competitive will render a counterplan useless when it comes to deciding whether to reject the affirmative.

//**How often do you vote on topicality?**//

I will vote negative on topicality whenever the negative successfully shows that the affirmative fails to meet the resolution.

//**What do you think about** **kritiks?**//

I don't reject kritiks out of hand, but I am concerned that an over-reliance of kritiks detracts from other, stronger, argumentation. In order for me to vote on the basis of a kritik, it must provide some reason to accept or reject the policy advocated by the affirmative.

//**What about traditional stock issues?**//

The bottom line is that I will weigh the advantages of the plan against the disadvantages. Each stock issue has an impact in determining how much advantage the affirmative can claim.

//**Can new arguments be introduced in the 2NC?**//

Yes, the 2NC is constructive, so there are no problems introducing evidence in this round. The 1NR is a rebuttal, so there should be no new arguments presented in it.

//**Can new evidence be introduced in rebuttals?**//

Yes - as long as it is dealing with an argument that originated in constructive speeches.