Silberman,+Daniel

This is basically for LD only, I have a much more specific philosophy for Parliamentary and Policy. In short: I am an anti-interventionist judge. I will attempt to evaluate every argument made before me in the round, and I will not insert my own views of debate or of the world to interfere with that. I have 6 years of varsity level debating experience and currently do parliamentary debate at the University of Oregon. SHORT VERSION: Essentially, do what you want. Also, feel free to just call me Daniel, not judge. 1. Theory : feel free to read it in front of me, will vote on it if there are impacts to it. 2. Kritik : feel free to read it in front of me. Read your craziest kritik of all time, I'll listen to it. Break your new K in for the first time against me, I want to hear it. Run your experimental performance about drinking chocolate milk and dancing on the table while reading poetry. As long as you give me a way to evaluate your argument in the round, I WILL listen to it and evaluate it as such. 3. Speed: Im comfortable with any level of speed, I'll be able to flow the round regardless. If I can't understand you, I'll likely shout "CLEAR" really loud at you. 4. Organization : I'm a flow judge through and through. However, subpoints in your 1AC and 1NC are probably a good idea for the sake of the organization of the round as a whole. A lot easier to respond to arguments directly this way and keeps my flow more organized. More specifically: Theory: Feel free to read theory in front of me. I am not opposed to voting on theory if the position is not responded to adequately. As long as you give me an interpretation of your theoretical objection, some standards through which to evaluate the position, and impacts as to why it's a voter, theory can be a voting issue for me. Unlike others on this site, I won't list "good" and "bad" theory arguments; I don't think that kind of value judgement is needed in debate. If you read theory, no matter what it is, I'll listen. When responding to theory, always provide a counter-interpretation, and some counter-standards to evaluate your counter-interp through. Your response to a topicality, for example, should be more than "Gut check, judge. Do we seem topical? I think so." Kritik: I am more than comfortable with the K debate: chances are I have heard of your critical theorist, but in case I'm not, its always smart to offer a thesis statement at the top of your K shell. I'm most DEFINITELY the judge to read your crazy criticism against. Read your new K that you've never read before in front of me. Impact it out fully, clearly explain the ways in which they link. I prefer topic specific links for your K which gives it a little more uniqueness, however generic links are ok so long as they are well-warranted and articulated. Lastly, answer K's with offense. Putting entirely defensive arguments on a K guarantees a good K debater will run you into the floor. Link Turns are the way to go. Multiple, multiple link turns. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="font-family: open_sans_bold; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">Speaker Points: Typically 26-30. You've got to be pretty bad to warrant me giving anything less than a 25. At the same time, you've really got to sparkle in order to get a 30. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="font-family: open_sans_bold; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">In the final speeches: The best way to win in front of me is to clearly explain why you are winning the argument you're going for, and what impact that argument has. Impact weighing with final rebuttals is a must, too many debate rounds nowadays end with odd summaries of the line by line debate that don't fundamentally resolve the key issues in the round. Walk me through the ballot, literally say, "Daniel, you can pull the trigger and sign aff/neg because _____".