Sonnenberg,+Jake

Jake Sonnenberg Harvard-Westlake ‘11 Stanford ‘15 Last Updated: September 12, 2011

I debated on the national circuit for four years, and I am now an assistant coach for Harvard-Westlake.

The fundamental principle that will guide my decision-making is non-intervention. In other words, I will vote on the arguments presented in round and will attempt to resolve the debate in a manner that is most consistent with the decision calculus that has been won or agreed upon.

There are four exceptions:
 * 1) If a debater wins arguments justifying judge intervention, I will intervene. Non-intervention is the starting point for my judging, but I won't impose it on you. If you win that I should use a different principle to guide my decision-making, then I will use that other principle.
 * 2) If I am //certain// evidence is miscut, then I will not consider the miscut evidence in my decision regardless of whether the argument is identified as miscut in the round. Cheating, whether intentional or not, will not cause your win.
 * 3) I will not evaluate new arguments in rebuttals. This includes arguments that I did not understand when they were first read, but that magically become intelligible in later speeches. If an argument didn’t have a claim, warrant, and impact when it was first introduced, for the purposes of my decision, it does not exist (see my comments on //a prioris,// skepticism, and kritiks).
 * 4) I reserve the right to vote against (or deduct speaker points for making) any argument that I find racist, sexist, morally reprehensible, or otherwise offensive. I do not know what exactly would be sufficiently abhorrent to warrant such intervention, but I suggest that you steer clear of anything that might cross this threshold. I think that the vast majority of debaters don’t have to worry about this, but it’s only fair for me to say it anyways.

Having said that, I do have certain preferences, and it would be dishonest for me to claim that I am completely unbiased when it comes to debate arguments. I will try my best to put my preferences aside, but here are some general comments:

STANDARDS
 * I don't have any paradigmatic preference as to how the decision calculus is structured or presented so long as there is a clear metric for me to evaluate the round.
 * In terms of personal preference, I am biased against frameworks that do not allow for comparison (i.e. one violation is sufficient to affirm/negate), I strongly dislike cases that merely demonstrate permissibility, rather than an obligation (this is especially true if the permissibility argument isn’t “triggered” until rebuttals), and I despise skepticism, //a prioris//, and other similar arguments. I will vote for such arguments if they are won (and are tied to a cohesive ballot story), but I will likely be receptive to theory run against such positions as well. Also, making these kinds of arguments will not help your speaker points.
 * I will not vote on an argument simply because it is labeled “pre-standards” if I do not understand //why// that argument would logically function above the standards level, or if the reason why that argument would be an //a priori// was not clear when it was first presented.

THEORY
 * I will treat theory just like any other argument. I will vote for it if it is won, and I will hold debaters to the same standards as on other parts of the flow.
 * Personally, I am biased towards competing interpretations, and I tend to think theory should be structured in the traditional four-part manner (Interpretation, Violation, Standards, Impact/Voter).
 * When answering theory, I think that debaters should always have one or both of the following: (a) “I meet” arguments on their opponent’s shell and (b) a counterinterpretation with offensive reasons it should be preferred.
 * It will be extremely difficult to convince me that fairness and education are not, at a minimum, reasons to exclude arguments. I tend to think that they are voting issues. However, I think that underdeveloped voters do leave debaters susceptible to responses involving reasonability and/or “drop the argument, not the debater.”
 * I will vote on RVI’s, and I find myself more compelled by them that most people.
 * I am especially impressed by good topicality debate. I will reward negatives that run topicality well and affirmatives that ably handle topicality when confronted by it.

SPEED
 * I think I can flow most speed. If you are going too fast, I will let you know.
 * Please slow down for tags and author names. It is in your best interest to do so, because it will help me keep track of where you are on the flow in rebuttals.

CRITICAL ARGUMENTS
 * I am not very familiar with “critical literature,” and I will hold it against you if you are deliberately evasive in CX when asked by your opponent to clarify issues or if it seems like you are hiding behind unclear language throughout the debate.
 * I will vote on a kritik if it is won //and// if I understand it. I actually enjoy well- executed critical debate. If you can pull it off, do not be afraid to run critical arguments in front of me. However, If I do not understand your argument when it is first read, do not expect me to vote for it when it makes sense later on.
 * I tend to believe that most K alternatives are just bad (and abusive) counterplans, and I am persuaded by theoretical and substantive responses to them.

POLICY-STYLE ARGUMENTS
 * I tend to think policy-style arguments often make for the best debate rounds. I encourage debaters to run plans, counterplans, disadvantages and the like.
 * I will vote on theory against such arguments, but I think that it would likely be a slightly uphill battle. If you have a problem with the plan that your opponent is running, topicality is probably a much better option in front of me.

MISCELLANEOUS
 * I think that evidence is important. I am impressed by good evidence comparison, and I think that almost all arguments should be supported with evidence from academic and peer-reviewed sources. I will not tolerate miscut or misrepresented evidence.
 * CX is binding. Period.
 * I have a much lower threshold for extensions than most judges. I don’t think it makes sense to require a debater to re-explain a conceded argument just to check-off an imaginary box. If it’s conceded, saying, “extend [X argument]” along with the tag and the argument’s function is sufficient. I’m much more interested in hearing argument interaction than your pre-written extension three times in a round.
 * I am open to arguments about “paradigms,” although I think that these are largely irrelevant issues.

Have fun, be polite, be confident, and be persuasive. I have great respect for debate and I would appreciate it if debaters treated the activity with respect as well.

Ask me if you have any questions.

Jake