Hosford,+Lukas

Let me begin with this: I sympathize if you do not know what is going on. The way debate has probably been presented to you (by coaches, judges, elders) and presented itself to you (as an environment of arguments that you must confront and prepare for) is almost undoubtedly overly complex and unnecessarily befuddling.

I take T, Framework, and Theory very seriously so they are viable (likely much more so than in front of most judges) but I will also therefore likely be much more offended by throw-away violations or interpretations that corrupt the topic.

If you are uncertain about anything, feel free to ask me before the debate, but do not pester me with questions if you have not made a sincere attempt to understand what I have written here.

Please speak at a rate that I can register each word you are saying. I think quickly and am quite familiar with a great many concepts that can be quite difficult to grapple with and nevertheless feel like the details of most debates slip me by without my having registered them. This is not a problem with me, this is a problem with the debaters are taught to speak. If I cannot register the words you speak then they cannot take me anywhere, I cannot think about them; if I am unable to think about the things you say, how can I possibly judge the debate? If you spew words faster than I can think, I will treat the words as if they mean nothing. Do not push me on this. You will find that I can be very helpful to you if you work with me, but if you do not adapt, you will not enjoy having me as a judge.
 * Speaking/Performance**

I am a __very__ bad judge if you read cards that are scantily highlighted or missing analysis for their claims. Cards are not "evidence" they are just something that has been published, please do not call them "evidence." When I google the word evidence, this is the definition I get: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." If your card has no evidence or analysis for it's claims, I will give it __zero weight whether or not the other team answers it__. For example, if your hegemony impact card says that there would be wars in many regions of the world or between "great powers" yet neglects to mention who are the leaders of the countries that would go to war and/or lacks any semblance of analysis about why their decision calculus would shift from a peaceful default to dangerous war, I will ignore it in my decision whether or not it is a major point of contestation. The same goes for a politics disad. If the internal link card does not actually say what the tag claims it says, I will not vote for the disad under any conditions (ie. the aff team could drop it and I would still not vote on it). I do not believe this is intervention, I walk into the debate willing to set aside my own arguments and beliefs, but in order to establish a claim in my mind, you need to do more than just make the claim. I believe that all your other judges who accept such claims (ie. the tags of cards with no analysis or evidence) are playing the role of someone who believes everything they read/hear which is in no way reflective of the world we live in. If this sounds like it may introduce an element of uncertainty into the debate that you are not used to, then I would say you are right. Too many judges approach debates from a purely technical lens. I believe that this approach to debate ignores the fact that there is an invisible uncertain line of willingness to believe; sensing that line and when you have shown another person enough of your thoughts to get them to see what you see defines the very essence of persuasion, but you don't know what is going on in my (or anyone else's but your own) head. I am used to hearing such bad arguments coming from people who are far too smart to be making such bad arguments that if you really listen to what I say here, I will certainly give you very good points.
 * Cards/"Evidence"/Warrants**


 * Arguments**

I am a very good judge for the intrinsicness argument. I have no desire to vote on the politics disad. This should help you understand why:
 * Politics/Intrinsicness**

In debates over the politics disad, judges often end up making the decision that there are two good policies but they cannot both be done because of the way government policymakers think. What decides the debate is not a deliberated decision about how we //should// act, but about what acts //are feasible// in the current political atmosphere. As is fitting with the name //politics// //disad //, debates stop being about policies and whether or not they ought to be done and start being about political maneuvering: //well it would be great if we could do both these things, but because members of congress are petty and partisan, president Obama needs to prioritize and save his political capital for what’s more important//. In the context of the //politics disad//, priorities are not of the theoretically abstract //the-environment-is-the-basis-of-all-life-so-it-should-be-thought-of-as-a-pre-requisite-to-the-growth-of-an-industrial-economy// sort, rather they are of a pragmatic //there-should-be-more-effective-government-checks-on-polluters-but-because-big-business-has-so-many-lobbyists-and-contributes-so-much-money-to-political-campaigns-we-can-only-get-though-these-measely-measures// sort.

I am a very bad judge for abstract theoretical/philosophical claims if you are not crystal clear in your own head on how they work on both an abstract level and in the debate. If however you believe you can bring that clarity to the debate, I am a very good judge for you. I have much experience with critical theory and philosophy and can give you good feedback. A well executed specific critique would please me very much. In general, I prefer good generic evidence over bad specific evidence and so a critical approach to a scenario or geopolitics based aff would probably be a very good strategy.
 * Critiques**

"Weigh the aff" in the context of epistemology critiques is utter nonsense: they are saying that the way you got to your conclusions was bad and you want me to weigh those conclusions against those criticisms? Epistemology critiques are about how debaters, judges, and researchers approach thinking. Plans are about the policies that the government should or should not make. This is basically what i believe to be the "logic" behind "weigh the aff" claims in this context: //i-personally-who-have-almost-no-power-have-strung-together-this-thought-that-may-or-may-not-rely-on-a-very-bad-method,-but-if-my-thought-is-right-and-the-government-doesn't-listen-to-it-then-the-consequences-would-be-catastrophic-so-instead-of-focusing-on-my-thought-process-before-we-entertain-my-thought-we-should-just-keep-saying-that-the-government-should-act-without-giving-serious-dedicated-consideration-to-establishing-a-correct-way-of-thinking//. To think about it another simpler way, such claims are like comparing what the government should do to what individuals should do which is not a realistic comparison: the government is so much more powerful than individuals that making such a comparison risks eclipsing the importance of individual behavior.
 * "weigh the aff" against epistemology critiques**

I am open to entertaining all styles of debate in general. However, I am HIGHLY receptive to neg framework arguments if the aff does not give them reasonable grounds for debate: ie. forces them to negate an identity, the inclusion of a particular group in debate, or a nigh irrefutable claim.  I am a very bad judge if you read evidence that is scantily highlighted or missing analysis for its claims. For example, if your hegemony impact card says that there would be wars in many regions of the world or between great powers yet neglects to mention who are the leaders of the countries that would go to war and/or lacks any semblance of analysis about why their decision calculus would shift from a peaceful default to dangerous war, I will give it __zero weight whether or not the other team answers it__. Cards are not "evidence" they are just something that has been published, please do not call them "evidence."
 * Framework**
 * Cards/"Evidence"/Warrants**