Eckert,+Bennett

Updated 04/22/18 for TOC 2018. Reasonably important updates are marked with “”.

Greenhill 2016 Northwestern 2020 I coach Greenhill. I have not judged since Emory. This means that [1] I don’t know a ton about the new arguments on the topic since then. I don’t know a ton about what people have been reading, so don’t expect me to know a lot of jargon about the topic. [2] It would be good if people went a little slower at the beginning of the tournament (rounds 1-2). TOC 2018 conflicts: Greenhill, Cambridge Rindge & Latin, Princeton.

1] Please do an email chain. Email: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com 2] I have no interest in judging debates about bad theory arguments. They are bad, boring, and pointless. If you make a theory argument so bad that it deserves to be laughed at, I just won't vote on it. This doesn't apply to many arguments. For example, arguments that are fair game are CP theory, plans good/bad, some spec args, AFC good/bad, etc. This is only meant to exclude really awful arguments like "neg may only make 2 arguments," "must spec CP status in speech," and "must spec what you meant when you said 'competing interps.'" Good theory debates are awesome and fun to judge and strategic theory is fine, but theory debates about arguments this bad are honestly just not worth my time. 3] I value explanation a lot. I've found that I vote aff in a lot of debates in which the neg goes for a ton of arguments, each of which could be a winning 2NR but end up getting very under-explained. I have also voted for a lot of debaters whose evidence is not amazing but who give very good explanations/spin for that evidence. The best debaters I've seen collapse in rebuttals, give overviews, and weigh. 4] I am unlikely to be convinced that something categorically outweighs something else (e.g. .01% risk of extinction outweighs, fairness outweighs everything no matter what, etc.). Your weighing arguments should be contextual/comparative.  5] I agree with all of the bold stuff at the top of Rodrigo Paramo’s paradigm. (https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Paramo%2C+Rodrigo) 6] In high school, I mostly did policy-style stuff. I am very comfortable with these debates. In college, I spend a lot of time reading contemporary moral philosophy (Rawls, Korsgaard, Scanlon, Nagel, Parfit, etc.) and I like philosophy a lot. Good framework debates have been some of my favorites to judge. However, here’s an excerpt from Travis Fife’s paradigm that expresses how I feel about framework debates in LD: “i have found that i do not like "phil debaters" because debaters who identify as such seem much more inclined to try to obscure clash and rely on spikes/tricks. If you debate philosophy straight up and have read primary source material to enhance your explanations, I might be the best judge for you. If you intend to read a million analytics and use trickery, i would be a terrible judge for you.”  7] I have difficulty piecing together K debates in which the 2NR reads a very long overview but doesn’t mention how arguments in the overview interact with 1AR arguments. To avoid me having difficulty, you should either do most of your work on the line-by-line or flag which parts of the overview answer which aff arguments. 8] I do not have a super strong opinion on T-Framework/the aff must defend the topic, but I have probably voted for T most often in these debates. 9] I have a fairly poor (though improving) understanding of high theory (Baudrillard, Deleuze, Bataille, etc.). I will vote on these arguments, but I won't vote on something that I can't coherently explain, so the bar for explanation is pretty high. In general, you should not assume I am well-read on the literature you’re reading unless it’s the core of the topic literature or contemporary analytic ethics. 10] I am very unlikely to vote on a "risk of offense" argument on theory. I'm inclined to think that the debater initiating theory has to generate a real/substantial advantage to their interpretation that I could describe without using the term "risk of offense".
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Things to know **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Please do it--if you don't disclose and the person you're debating mentions it, your speaks will suffer. Also, if disclosure theory is read, I'll vote for it pretty much no matter what as long as 1] they actually didn't disclose 2] it's not being used against debater who is clearly far less experienced. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I really do not like to judge disclosure theory debates about this. Please be reasonable (e.g. ask your opponents which aff they’re reading before the debate) and don’t have debates about whether the wifi works and stuff like that. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> I have difficulty separating my opinions on disclosure from my judging debates about disclosure. I am likely to make a judgment call in the event of a debate about disclosure. I will do this to both incentivize good/reasonable disclosure norms and avoid judging a bunch of disclosure theory debates. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">"The affirmative must tell the negative what the aff is before the debate, unless it is a new aff. If it is a new aff, the affirmative does not have to tell the negative what the aff is/what the advantages are/what the advocacy text is/anything. All they need to say is 'new aff.'" ~ Varad Agarwala <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">To clarify, this means that I, for lack of better words, hack for disclosure theory. I don't really like judging debates that are like "but my computer was broken!" so please don't make me. I'll also evaluate full text disclosure/new affs bad/etc. just like any other theory argument.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Disclosure **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I will give speaks based on how well I think you should do at the tournament since I pretty much view them as a tiebreaker for clearing/seeding. I give higher speaks to reward arguments I think are good/enjoyable to listen to/generally fun. I also give good speaks for good strategy. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> I’ve realized my speaker point scale is very low, so I will probably give slightly higher speaks at the TOC. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Last year, I gave my highest speaks for (mostly) very good T debates and very good framework debates. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Last year I averaged a 28.14. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Here's a rough scale of how I'll give speaks: <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">30 = you should win everything. the only 30 I've given was to Jack Wareham, so if to attain a 30 you must debate roughly as well as him. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">29.5-29.9 = you should be in late elims <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">29-29.5 = you should definitely clear <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">28.5-29 = you're on the bubble/probably should clear <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">28-28.5 = you're on the bubble/probably shouldn't clear <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">27.5-28 = average <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">26.5-27.5 = you made some important strategic errors/lacked a clear strategy <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><26.5 = you probably did something to really annoy me
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Speaks **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">A prioris* <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Racism/etc. good <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Moral skepticism* <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Trivialism* <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Awful theory args* <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">*I would vote on those if your opponent did something even worse. For example, I may vote on an a priori if my only options were that and skep.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Things I Won't Vote On **