Stacy,+Jonathan

To whom it concerns, this is a concise judging philosophy as I believe judging philosophies should be specific. A quick background on myself. I debated policy for Belton High School for 4 years and I did NFA-LD for 2 years at Longview. I am a junior at Missouri State University. I have worked with Lee's Summit High School, Belton High School, Ray-Pec High School, and select individuals from around the country on policy strategy. I enjoy fast debate (I can flow as fast as you are able to speak). However, if one speaks faster than his/her capabilities then the speech becomes muddled and very hard to flow. Do not mistake slurring words for the ability to speed read. Enough of this. -Policy Debate- As a general rule I will vote on anything, this means potential abuse, theory of any sort, and especially dropped arguments on my flow. I usually vote based on what my flow sheets say. One's ability to shell out an argument and create impact analysis (warrants and backing) on a subject will be accounted for in my flow. If the 1AR drops an argument and the negative extends that argument through...don't expect me to vote Affirmative. The 2AR really needs to leverage their impacts against the negative's impacts in order for me to consider voting NEG. To me debate is a game and that is why I vote based on what my flow says. It keeps me from having to intervene as much as possible. As a small note... Label everything and be organized "Sub-Point A,"... it makes it easier to flow and also label your positions. One more thing, I am definitely okay with neg kicking out of positions. I have seen every argument so nothing is new to me. Don't think your special just because you can read Heidegger or Zizek. I have read all of Zizek's books and Being and Time by Martin Heidegger. I have read Adorno, Foucault, Derrida, Wilson, Kant, Hegel, Freud, Lacan, James, Agamben, Badiou and many other philosophers. As of December of this year (2012) I will have my post-modern theory of "Societal Hierarchy" published. I know philosophy. Don't run bad philosophical arguments. Btw.. Dialectical Marxism happens to be my favorite so by all means if you are good at K's feel free to read and Marxist authors. However, make sure you understand the meaning of what they are saying. I love K's. //**AFF-**// I will vote on stock issues if the affirmative sets that framework. However, I am all for a well run K Aff. I love philosophy and read philosophy consistently so don't read something that is blatantly generic or contradictory. I will hate it, but again I will still vote on it if the Neg attacks the Aff poorly... I will just hate you. Again, Aff is easy cause I will vote on anything you read but impact analysis is big for me. Impact and leverage impacts over the neg specifically and I will vote for Aff. A quick note: I hate rounds that revolve around "stock issues." I really don't care about significance... If you are going to make Inherency arguments then put them in the form of a procedural. Inherency usually doesn't matter because the point at which the affirmative creates a new policy with new impacts it is a new plan and has some ford of inherent structural or attitudinal problems.

//**Neg-**// //**Topicality-**// This is a huge issue for me. My specialty is procedural. I love procedurals especially if well run. If Neg reads a procedural such as topicality, do not just read a definition and some standards. And example would be reading a T on "Substantial", reading the definition and then saying "Standards: Predictability and Ground." What does that mean? I want to know why predictability and ground matter. Create warrants for those arguments. Every T or Procedural should consist of a 1. Interpretation, 2. Violation, 3. Standards, and 4. Voters. If your procedural doesn't consist of those 4 parts then it is not a real argument. It is just you spouting unwarranted terms. Furthermore, topicality must be impacted out. Tell me why I should vote Neg....what is the aff doing wrong, how does it affect you, why does it even matter, etc. When aff answers... I want to here counter interps, We meets, Counter Standards and Counter Voters. If their is no competing terms then why should I believe aff is topical? //**Disadvantages-**// There are three to four parts... Uniqueness, Links/Internal Links, and Impacts. If these parts aren't together in the position than I have a problem evaluating a DA. In fact I don't even consider the position a full DA. Impact analysis is very important to me. Show the warrants of the DA in relationship with the impacts and leverage them of the Aff.I will vote on any impacts even if it includes nuclear war... It is really cool if debaters add multiple impacts to a disad as well as multiple link relationships to the Aff. Just because the neg wins uniqueness, however, doesn't mean they win the position. If neg is going all in on a DA then defend all parts... otherwise kick it..as long as their is no offense on such position. Links are also very important. If your DA doesn't link then don't read it or I will laugh at you...not really but seriously don' read it because I will no it is a stupid attempt. //**PTX-**// As far as politics DA's go. Go for it! I hate political capital because, as a studying political scientist, I would argue that there is no such thing. I hate the concept. There is no quantitative way to measure such thing so it is really wasteful of a position. However, working political capital into the disad is not a bad idea. Like "Since Obama doesn't have time to pass plan, he is not credible enough to change the docket in congress to pass aff" or something like that. Ptx are good with counterplans.
 * //Counterplans-//** READ COUNTERPLAN THEORY!!!!!!! It is so important. I want to know how I should evaluate the counterplan. (to be continued). I don't mean "conditional or dispo or not conditional.... that is part of theory however I want to know evaluative theory like net benefits, etc. Furthermore there should be a T violation unless it is a topical counterplan which I am totally okay with. Make sure your counter plan is organized. I like a good theoretical shelling before the solvency and such. Counterplans should be competitive. If they aren't then why run them? Leverage them over the aff. I will vote for any kind of counterplan (Consult, Plan Plus, PIC, etc.). By the way... I assume the neg has access to fiat unless told otherwise by the affirmative in theory. However, I like to hear in the neg counterplan theory that they have access to fiat.
 * //X/O (Executive Order) CP's-//** DO NOT RUN THEM UNLESS YOU HAVE A GOOD THEORETICAL BASE AND REAL SOLVENCY. I hate hate hate generic X/O counterplans. One should show prevalent research while running an X/O. Obviously the plan text is going to be "The president will pass plan." I want something a little more technical as far as means of passing plan and solvency besides just saying "We solve for the PTX DA"....That is total BS... Btw...though I say I don't want you to run the argument unless its good doesn't mean that I will vote you down if you run some BS counterplan. If you win the argument you win. I may kritik you after the round though. There are too many political science journals that you could research to create a well rounded X/O.
 * KRITIKS-** I absolutely love the K debate. Feel free to read them. However, make sure you are reading a K that you understand and have researched. I like K's with multiple authors but if you want to run a K with every card from //Revolution at the Gates// then that is fine (the book is by Zizek by the way). I need Kritiks to be well shelled. //**Framework, Link, Implications, Impact, Alternative.**// All five parts of the Kritik must be present. However, I make exceptions to the alternative. I don't believe alternatives are necessary because Kritiks are operating on the function of a singular society in which there is a problem. The Kritik points the problem out, gives the implications of such problem and then tell of the negative impact(s) from participating in such system. It is like a philosophical DA. I am definitely okay with that. If the Aff argues the K needs an alternative then I expect the negative to be able to defend their interpretation and argue why there is no alternative needed. If you don't know how to do that an example would be "Giving an alternative is participating in the same oppressive system of policy making that the affirmative is portraying thus we shall reject that mindset." This is not an alternative. I want to make clear that saying "Reject the Aff" is not an alternative. It is part of the debate. The judge either rejects aff or neg. By rejecting the aff, the kritik is still not proposing an alternative to such aff like revolution (at the extreme), creation of more thorough scientific analysis and studies to be more efficient and safe in production of medicines (taken from my Technocracy K). etc. The idea is to create an intellectual philosophical alternative. If you don't have one then don't read one. Zizek's free thinking alternative makes sense as long as it is created in the correct context, I don't just want to hear "The alternative is to reject the aff and participate in a system of free thinking." Actually read me the real alternative and explain the idea Zizek puts forth. Really quick, there is a difference between implications and impacts. Implications are objects or items that occur philosophically based on the affirmative participation in the bad things. They, in a way, show impacts on people but they are not the impacts that //Impacts portray// such as revolution, rejection of the dollar, nuclear holocaust, etc. A question I often hear concerns "Is it okay if we run a CP and K in the same round?" My answer is sure. Don't read multiple worlds good theory. It is a waste of time and usually the debaters don't even understand the meaning. However, be prepared to answer arguments considering the fact that usually the counterplan participates in the discourse the K portrays as bad. K's don't always have to be deeply philosophical. They can be scientific, real world, etc. I love K's and very seldom find a team to run them right so please wow me.
 * //Procedurals-//** I realize I kind of touched on procedurals with T but I am very picky when it comes to procedurals. Procedurals are my favorite arguments. When ran correctly they can be used almost as a kritik. I like when one can leverage standards and voters of an aff. It can be very easy. What I don't want to hear is "A-Spec. Interpretation: USFG Rotunda in '01 card." That is not a legitimate a-spec.... Read some political science journals and come up with a real reason that bureaucratic enforcement is important. Do not read generic specs. They are boring and usually used for a time suck. I mean... I guess you can use them strategically but is frustrating to me because specs can be used as a really good argument for leverage and double binds. For instance, F-spec and a spending DA. There are plenty more. I don't buy arguments like "gut-check" and "reasonability" for voters. They are not intuitive. Flesh out voters. If you just say "reasonability" instead of giving an intuitive argument behind why the aff is abusing you based on such voter, then I have no warrant. Without a warrant there is no reason to vote for you and it really isn't even an argument. Sometimes this situation forces me to intervene. Furthermore, buried specs and T are fine with me in a CP or whatever position. If you don't know what that means then don't do it. If there is offense on your spec (or any position you want to kick) don't kick it because usually there is an independent voter. If you want to kick, defeat the offense then kick it. I like to vote on well rounded procedurals.
 * //RVI-//** Means absolutely nothing to me if you don't warrant it. If you just say... "There is an RVI on this T" as the affirmative... you need to tell me why there is an RVI and how it plays in as an independent voter, I will vote on a good RVI.
 * //Theory-//** I am all about theory. Condi good, Condi bad, PICs bad, etc. I will vote on theory alone if it has offensive implications. I like theory to be ran somewhat as a procedural because it is organized and creates good warrants. However, if you warrant your theory I will vote on it. Feel free to create IV's based on your theory.
 * //Any other specific questions.. Email me at://** **stacin69@gmail.com**