Gappmayer,+Oliver

//Last updated: Feb 18, 2013 - If you have read my paradigm, you may want to read the alert below the summary, it is new.//


 * Background**

High school: Competed in LD and Policy Qualified to NFL nationals and the TOC in LD in 2010

Post-High school: Juan Diego- LD coach (fall 2010-spring 2012) Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy- LD coach (fall 2012-spring 2013) Judging- I have been actively judging LD and policy since I graduated (2010). This last season I haven't judged much.

To preface the rest of my comments, let me first say that I think debate is your activity, not mine. I will do my best to evaluate the arguments that you present, in the way that you present them. I try to be as objective as possible. However, as some of you are aware, no judge is ever capable of leaving all of their biases at the door. Even the most staunch 'tabula rosa' judge is probably just a big liar. Instead of pretending like I am a blank slate, I think it is important to warn you of my predispositions against certain arguments or strategies so you can adjust accordingly.

The following list should __**NOT**__ be interpreted as a list of arguments you should not run. Instead, it __**SHOULD**__ be interpreted as a summary of my various thoughts on debate. In rounds where you find yourself reading an argument or executing a strategy mentioned here, you will know to proceed with caution, ensuring that you provide great warrants and solid extensions. If you are sure to do that, there shouldn't be any problem.

Feel free to ask me any specific questions you might have about my preferences as a judge.

__ **How I see debate** __


 * Truth testing/Comparative worlds:** My default view of debate is that it is a comparison of advocacies under a given normative framework. This preference is not hard an fast, though I very rarely am convinced to view the resolution as a question of truth. As an observation, truth testing has, in my experience, promoted blippy, low quality and one-sided debates. I have seen some gleaming exceptions to this, but they have been as rare as the [|Javan Rhino].


 * Speaks:** It is unfortunate that such an important part of the activity is so thoroughly ambiguous. The following is a rough scale of how I assign speaks:


 * 30:** You were perfect. I can't think of a thing that could have been done better in this debate. It is not possible to receive a Loss-30. If you were perfect, you didn't lose.
 * 29-29.9:** Very, very, good debate. While there were some minor hiccups (maybe you were a bit unclear at times) the majority of the round was impressive.
 * 28-28.9:** This range is for good debaters who, despite some mistakes, performed well. Also, great debaters with some striking clarity issues will receive speaks in this range.
 * 26-27.9:** This is where most debaters will find themselves. If you made some significant mistakes, or if you were pretty difficult to follow, you will receive speaks in this range.
 * <26:** No bueno. If you got less than a 26 from me, you must have done something pretty bad.


 * Theory:** I apologize in advance if this section becomes a bit lengthy, but i find it necessary to rant about the theory debate. I have observed a trend in the LD community to revert to theory as the "A-strat" against certain opponents. While I think theory is an important check against abusive norms in the community, I see it frequently becoming a tool to exclude less technically proficient debaters from a potentially very compelling debate. That is bad. Don't do it. Ever. If I have to watch a round where you read theory against someone who clearly isn't capable in engaging the technical aspect of procedural arguments you will receive __ **EXTREMELY** __ low speaks. That being said, win with honor, it'll help you sleep at night.

Here are a couple of guidelines to determine if I will loath your theory position:


 * 1-** If you have an interpretation in your expando/folder/computer/mind that advocates a norm for the debate that is contradictory to the one you are running, I probably hate your theory argument. Let me explain what i mean. If your opponent would have been a victim of your theory assault regardless of how they interpret the resolution, your shell will make me a very angry judge indeed. Example: on the international court topic (Jan/Feb 2009) there were a lot of debaters running both "must defend one specific court" against debaters that defended the resolution as a general principal and "can't specify which court you are running" against those who specified which court they were using. This is bad debate. It ruins the rounds I have to judge and makes me hate getting up in the morning. Don't do that.


 * 2-** Questions of abuse- Let me start by saying that I prefer actual rather than potential abuse. However, I evaluate potential abuse as well given an argument for why I should.
 * a-** If you claim real abuse, be able to point to a "no-link" or some other very clear example of how you have been abused. If you can't, don't claim in-round abuse. Remember "I couldn't run "X" because of their framework" is not real abuse. The abuse in that case is potential unless it has been run, and subsequently excluded by their interpretation.
 * b-** If you are claiming potential abuse, you really need to have a very solid reason why this specific instance of potential abuse is particularly severe. I am generally pretty persuaded by arguments contesting the voter level of potential abuse claims, you must be ready to answer these.


 * 3**- Competing interpretations v. reasonability- I'll default reasonability but am very receptive to arguments to the contrary. I rarely evaluate a theory debate under a non-competing interpretations framework.


 * "Tricks":** My general perception of arguments that are labeled as "tricks" is that they should be relabeled as "bad arguments that can win rounds through convolution and deception." You aren't being tricky, [|this guy] is being tricky, you are being uneducational. If your argument is good enough to run, it is good enough to run well. Don't expect me to vote for positions that are missing necessary components.


 * Skepticism:** I am extremely skeptical of these positions. As a warning, I've never found myself voting for this type of argument. The tendency for them to be purely defensive is probably the reason. I've yet to be convinced otherwise; if you think you can do it, good luck.


 * The RVI:** Anyone familiar with my paradigm might want to pay attention to this section because it is a deviation from my previous preferences. While the RVI is still not my favorite answer to T or theory, I am less inclined to ignore it as I was in the past. As a general rule, I don't see procedurals as Reverse Voting Issue. However, in situations of particularly clear abuse in which a debater has been excluded out of the round in its entirety by a misuse of said procedurals, I can see the RVI as a good reason to vote. The other instance in which i might be persuaded by the RVI is in a criticism of your opponents epistemology in excluding your position. (ie, a K of theory or a K of T) Again, these arguments tend to not be my favorite, but I have been persuaded by them in the past.


 * Speaking Style:** We all know what you're looking at this section for. Yes, speed is fine. Yes, I will yell clear. However, if I have to say clear more than once, it will effect your speaks. Also, please start slower and build up speed, I promise that the dramatic increase in clarity is worth it. Some other tips:


 * 1**- Enunciate your words. Its pretty hard to flow as your sentences begin to blend together into one homogeneous mass of undecipherable nothingness.
 * 2**- Number your arguments- Not only does it help with rebuttal efficiency, but it makes it easy for me to know when one argument starts and when another begins.
 * 3**- Slow down on taglines, authors and structural indicators- This keeps my flow nice and clean. A clean flow is a happy judge. And really your goal should be to keep me as happy as possible.
 * 4**- Make clear, __**warranted**__ extensions. (emphasis on the emphasis on the word warranted)


 * Evidence:** If you read a card and are asked about it in cross-x, you shouldn't have to examine it closely in order to provide the warrant. It annoys me to no end when I watch a debater searching for the warrants in a piece of evidence that they have never really read before. If you don't understand it, don't read it. **__Especially when it is in your constructive__**. There is no excuse for not knowing the arguments that you expect me to vote on.


 * Overly dense philosophy for the sake of intellectual masturbation:** I see two major issues with philosophical debate in highschool LD rounds. Nearly every K round I have seen in a while has included one or both of these issues


 * 1**- Debaters do not understand their authors
 * 2**- Debaters do not know how to explain their authors to an audience that does not have a prior knowledge of the content.

Don't get me wrong, I was a K debater for a large part of my high school career. I love reading and discussing critical literature and arguments. I think that critical theory is a vital asset to our community and I will happily vote for these positions. What bothers me in many K rounds is when a debater has an unclear understanding of their author. If you are expecting me to vote on an author's theory, you should have read their works. What I do **__NOT__** want to see is a poorly constructed Backfile-Frankenstein's monster of a kritik that you have no understanding of. **__Do not think you are fooling anyone when you do this.__**

For those of you that understand concepts better when arranged mathematically, here goes.


 * Bad understanding of authors and the arguments that the are making = Bad extensions/bad explanations = Losing the round with low speaker points**

It is that simple. Unfortunately, this problem is a common one, which is, in my opinion, why there aren't many successful K debaters on the circuit right now.


 * Conclusion-** This will be updated and revised as my opinions change (as i'm sure they will). Remember, this list is not meant to be a guide to what arguments can/cannot be ran in front of me, but rather it should be used as an indicator of my preferences. I make a point to not reject arguments on face and attempt to fairly evaluate everything you have to say. If you have any specific questions regarding a position you are unsure about, or a question regarding my stylistic preferences (hint: I really don't have any), please don't hesitate to ask before the round begins, or to message me on Facebook. Either are acceptable.