VanWinkle,Tyrell

I debated for 3 years for Cedar Ridge High ‘13 competing in round robins and getting to bid rounds. Now I coach Stony Point High. I’m a philosophy major and read quite a bit so take that as you will. When I debated I never did policy style argumentation it was either K lit or philosophical positions.

__**TL;DR:**__ I have no problem judging anything whether it be super stock or some abstract performance. Please for your benefit understand that I enjoy clash that is going somewhere. From the strategic decisions you make to your impacting of (hopefully) each argument being articulated, there should be a beautiful story articulating layering and weighing that at the end of the day is what I’m voting for. My ballot should reflect your story… if it doesn’t there was an error in communication.

__**Kritiks:**__ I’m cool with K’s no matter the type. The more eccentric, esoteric, or complicated the Kritik is, the more I require of you to understand. I dislike voting on complex K’s that debaters don’t understand just because they think their opponent won’t understand It or someone wrote some fantastic extensions and overviews for them. Thus, I have a lower threshold for argumentation for those going against a K in this circumstance.

Stuff to note:
 * 1) 1. Implications of the K need to be labeled and explained as such in the 1NC not waiting for 2NR to make some weird extrapolations. I will consider those arguments new in the 2. That isn’t to say the K must have all of this written inside of it, but when you are done reading the K there should be work done to explain the interactions of the K and the AC.
 * 2) 2. Rejection is an alt in the instance of discursive or rhetorical criticism so long as omission of that discourse or rhetoric is sufficient to solve the K.
 * 3) 3. Perms don’t mean you win, but it needs to be clearly articulated how the K denies perm whether it be because of the necessity of criticizing methodology, foundations, or assumptions.

__**Performance:**__ These are cool if done well. Though refer to the ROB and Competing Framework stuff.

__**Theory:**__ __**ROB:**__ Laundry list:
 * 1) 1. I default to reasonability except when there is an RVI, then there must be a competing interp.
 * 2) 2. RVI’s are cool if well justified. Muddled theory debate doesn’t mean you weren’t theoretically bad or good. In case of a muddled theory debate no one gets rewarded.
 * 3) 3. Fairness is a real voter. Doesn’t mean I’m not receptive to reasons it isn’t.
 * 4) 4. Try to not treat spikes as the internals of a card. Treat them like a tagline- a bit slower so I can get it all down. I can’t vote on what I don’t have flowed.
 * 5) 5. I don’t think disclosure is a reason to lose the round. I think it is a choice that all debaters choose to make until it becomes a rule. However, I do think disclosure is great. Either way, just know I’ll vote on disclosure theory, but I’m much more receptive to reasons why I shouldn’t. Update: I still don’t like disclosure theory, but I’m more receptive of it from an affirmative debater than a Neg debater.
 * 6) 6. Meta-Theory is snazzy, But I hold a much higher threshold for it than theory. Requires there to be reasons it comes first otherwise I will weigh it against the other theory shell.
 * 1) 1. The role of the ballot is an escape from truth testing as the traditional role of the ballot so absent a second role of the ballot I default the opposing debater’s role of the ballot to truth testing.
 * 2) 2. The words “Role of the ballot” do not make it a real role of the ballot (a deviation from truth testing as the role of the ballot). There needs to be a warrant as to why the standard is pre-fiat. If it is not explicit in case or explained properly, then do not be upset if I just evaluate it like another standard.
 * 3) 3. Saying ‘X’ is educational does not make it the only educational thing so please if you hear evidence about how educational some kritikal position is, please just explain how this doesn’t exclude talking about some other issue. Education is fine and dandy, but either have a disadvantage to the opponent’s knowledge production or a reason legitimately that all other forms of knowledge are insignificant. This can be analytics, but “the card says this is really educational” is not sufficient.

__**Competing Frameworks (ROB or not):**__ Considering the continuous “risk of offense” defense against… well… defense, I have adopted a new paradigm of judging. Traditionally judges are “confident” which means when there is a winning framework or role of the ballot any offense not accessing the standard given is essentially dead in the water. For example, if the winning role of the ballot is to combat oppression and the counter role of the ballot is anything but, the only thing that would matter is impacts that are attempting to combat oppression.

Instead of confidence, I adopt the paradigm of modesty. The distinction becomes important when dealing with risk of offense. For example, if the winning framing is concerned with structural violence (Aff) while the opposing framing is concerned with saving lives (Neg). Let’s say the neg is winning tons of defense on the aff to the point of only a slight risk of offense or slight risk of solvency. At the same time the neg is winning tons of offense or solvency under their own framework. Under the view of modesty, absent a reason saving lives is a bad thing (not that structural violence is more important, but a legit disadvantage to the framing), the lack of solving for structural violence and the extensive amount of life saving the neg is winning gives me a reason to vote on the neg advocacy.

Essentially (this is an extreme example), if a plan has a .01% chance of resulting in solving structural violence and not doing the plan has a 100% chance of saving a bunch of lives. Rationally, absent a reason that saving lives is a bad thing, not doing the plan becomes preferable.

2 caveats
 * 1) 1. Justifications for confidence being won can give me reasons to be confident.
 * 2) 2. It is always preferable for the debater to in their story weigh under modesty.

__**Trigger Warnings:**__ I have none. I’d like you to ask if certain subject matter is ok if it is something that delves into an emotional subject such as abuse, depression, suicide, or really any issue similar that could provoke strong emotions. Speaks will suffer and in worse case scenarios (depending on the circumstances and situation) someone could get voted down along with other out of round steps to try to prevent it in the future and rectify the issue at hand.

If it is more technical stuff such as statistics or studies on the issue that do not delve into the subject in a detailed manner, I have much less on an issue. But, it should be noted that it would be better to just ask anyway.

On the flip-side, if you are a debater who has a “trigger” and chooses to run something that is extremely personal like a narrative or performance, I am going to assume you can handle a scholarly discussion on the issue. So long as the opponent is not doing something that is construed as rude or venomous there will be no penalty for them engaging. (I again believe it comes down to the round itself; it is difficult to access these things abstractly)

__**Speaks:**__ 30- I see you doing well in outrounds. 29- Exceptional Speaking and technical skills 28- Exceptional speaking or technical skills 27- Decent debate (decent speaking skills as well as decent technical skills) 26- Your performance was something I rather not see again or you did not debate decently.
 * These are abstract qualifiers- subject to change depending on the round

__**Misc:**__
 * 1) 1. Speed is fine- as fast as you want to go. Slower on taglines. Read author names with no spreading. (when you signpost I don’t want to get something that wasn’t there or miss it).
 * 2) 2. Please when saying “turns case” instead of having it imbedded in the tagline explain how it actually turns case. If not, be sure that it actually turns case.
 * 3) 3. Don’t be rude.
 * 4) 4. Refer to Martin Sigalow’s philosophy and review embedded clash.

Any other questions email me Tyrell.vanwinkle@gmail.com