Struble,+Luca

I just finished my PhD in Philosophy from UCLA, specializing in philosophy of mind. I did policy debate for Lexington High School for 4 years, went to Northwestern, American, and Dartmouth institutes, and debated nationally. I will vote for whomever has the stronger argument for the truth or falsity of the resolution. This is a truth-testing paradigm where there are burdens on both the affirmative and the negative. However, I also think that consideration of comparative worlds is one way to discover the truth or falsity of the resolution; preferability of internalization of the aff or neg may bear on the truth or falsity of the resolution. I’ll presume neg if absolutely forced to. I used to be good with speed and I have no philosophical issues with speed. I'll let you know if I can't keep up or if you're being unclear. I will read cards after the round, especially if there is a question about whether the fact it asserts is mis-interpreted. But I won't read a card to make up for the fact that I wasn't able to flow it all. I will only vote on arguments I got onto my flow. I ran kritiks and am open to voting for them. But I need a strong reason to think that the kritik needs to be decided before the affirmative’s case. Also, the kritik cannot be merely of the resolution. The kritik needs to connect the aff to the resolution, e.g., via their actually advocating the resolution. I'm okay with plans if they are broad enough in scope to actually affirm the entire resolution. If a plan demonstrates only that, in a particular case, the resolution is correct, I will listen to negative arguments against the resolution as a whole. On theory, I lean towards “reasonability.” I will vote on actual abuse. I might vote on potential abuse, but I will have a very high threshold; it will take a lot of work to establish that there really would be rampant abuse if every judge voted on the grounds that I did. I'm also open to RVIs for in-round abuse, e.g., if there are a lot of theory arguments layered on top of each other or if the theory argument limits the affirmative's opportunity to engage in the rest of the debate. As with theory, it will be difficult to get me to vote on potential abuse. There aren't any particular arguments I like or don't like. Just make good arguments. I don't care about etiquette (like whether or not you stand). But I am very upset by rudeness: be considerate of your opponent. Speaking style only matters for speaking points. It won't consciously impact my decision. If an argument is dropped in its entirety, the extension in the line-by-line can be short. But if it's going to factor into my decision, you need to eventually do more than that. For instance, if it's the NR, you need to fully explain the argument in your final weighing. If it's the 1AR, you can just say “extend ___,” and save the full analysis for the 2AR. If it's an argument that wasn't dropped but just not answered well, though, it's best to extend every warrant that's relevant. If it's just a minimal extension, I'll take it into account but then you're just relying on my judgement about the strength of the warrants.