Bistagne,+Adam

Background: I debated four years for Loyola high. I broke at multiple tournaments and had a 4-3 record at the TOC.

Overview: I evaluate the round via an offense/defense paradigm. Thus, I will vote for the debater who provides comparatively more offense back to the framework that has been won in the round, lest there are other issues (theory) that precede this evaluation. Beyond this, I will try to evaluate the round in the most objective way possible. However, as all judges do, I have certain basic preferences that it would help to conform to.

Frameworks: I am fine with all frameworks and don’t have particular preferences about evaluating offense under one framework or another. However, I dislike “framework arguments” that trigger skepticism, or other arguments that collapse the debate down to one level like this. While I am not opposed to someone running error theory per se, I would prefer to not see error theory as the actual voter, but rather for there to be a standard of pragmatism that flows from moral fictionalism under which you have offense.

Theory: I default competing interpretations. While I can be persuaded that theory is an RVI or reasonability, generally I find the arguments against these views pretty damming. Even if theory is an RVI, that would require offense to a counter-interpretation. I-Meets or Defense on the shell does not trigger an RVI.

See also: Bob Overing Tom Placido