Heft,+Peter

toc

**Background**

 * High School:** Bexley High School (Bexley, OH)
 * College:** Studying at Denison University, debating at Capital University (CEDA/NDT)
 * Debating Experience:** 4 years HS debate (some national circuit), first year of college debate
 * Updated:** 9/22/14

tl;dr
If you're a lazy person and don't wanna read the full philosophy, here are the barebones: I don't believe anyone can be completely tab but I __//do//__ try to leave my biases at the door. This is your time and so I'm willing to vote on anything you throw at me, provided you explain it well. I'll vote on untopical affs, racism good, T US=Brazil, or any other stupid arguments. (Caveat to that, if your argument is incredibly stupid and you don't know what you're talking about, your speaker points may suffer)

For strike sheets
If your primary strategy is critical race theory or a performance advocacy, I'm probably not the judge for you. That being said, that doesn't mean I won't vote for you, but I'm no Gonzaba or Zagorin. (If you want to read the specific reasons, see below)

Arguments I Like
If you're into the whole "adaptation" thing, these are __some__ arguments I like hearing or I liked reading (this will come with a note at the end):
 * Ironic Arguments
 * Nietzsche or Camus
 * Schmitt or Jünger or Evola (maybe some Moldbug, if you can figure out a dope way to use him)
 * A Schmitt vs. Agamben debate
 * __//**Good**//__ heg debates
 * Iran prolif good
 * Defense of "repugnant" arguments
 * Shenanigans that will make me laugh (trolling, refusing to debate, etc.)

A thing to be aware of though, if you're reading one of the philosophers (Evola wouldn't consider himself a philosopher) above please know what they're actually saying. Chances are I do too and if the other team is able to poke holes in your argument by showing you don't understand their work, it will sad face.

Longer Philosophy
As stated above, I don't think any judge can be completely tab and I'm of the belief that if a judge says "I'm completely tab", they're fooling themselves. While I do have biases/arguments that I think are sub-par, I do my best to not let my feels get in the way of making the best decision I can.

Generic Questions

 * Speed?** - Go as fast as you want but __//please for the love of god distinguish between where the evidence ends and the next tag starts.//__ I will do my best to catch everything and if I miss something I will fill in the holes, but please don't make my job harder.


 * Is flashing prep?** - Ehhhhh, when I started debating I used to hate when judges took prep for flashing but as I become older and more cynical and I see teams abusing prep, I get very frustrated. So at this point in time, I say prep ends when the flash drive leaves your computer. I mean, come on, is it really that hard to plug a flash drive in, save the speech doc, and unplug it? Here is a 'how to use a flashdrive in debate properly' that I wrote: @http://pastebin.com/meh8igg3


 * Note about prep stealing -** If you're caught prepping while the other team is pulling up the file, etc. I will make a visibly grumpy face. If the other team calls you on it and you don't stop, I will subtract .25(4378) from both your speaks each time.


 * Disclosure and Oral Critiques? -** Yes. Debate is an educational activity and the way you learn round to round is by getting comments. I will always disclose. If the tournament yells at me, I'll hand in the ballot and disclose and give a quick critique for the debaters who want to listen.


 * Tech vs. Truth?** - I error to tech. If an argument is dropped and the team impacts it out, then it's true. That being said, if you grossly misrepresent an author (eg. Nietzsche's a Nazi) I won't hold it against you but I will tell you after the round.


 * Rude/Aggressiveness? -** I think there is a fine line between being aggressive and being rude. I skirted the line (probably still do) and all I can say is that if you're an asshole when the other team clearly doesn't deserve it, you will lose speaker points (>implying those matter).


 * Speaker Points?** - I don't know. I've always thought these were pretty stupid, but I suppose they do have value. I can't give an average yet, but high 28's. If you're super dope, funny, make me smile, are sassy but kind, you'll be in good shape. (For Ohio people, my favorite debaters, speaker wise, were Austen Yorko, Joseph Gorman, Kevin Pucci, Cam Colella, Andrew Beddow, Sean Lavelle, and Maggie Flanigan to name a few)


 * Cross-X?** - Do whatever. I listen to cross-x, but I don't flow it. (Yes, cross-x is binding)

Arguments

 * Aff** - For the most part I like topical affs that defend concrete policy action, but I'm down for a cool K aff or some topic specific advocacy. If you wanna read an untopical aff that's cool too, just have good answers.


 * Counterplans** - Go for it. I do think consult or condition CPs are cheating, but if you can defend them theoretically, then go for it.


 * Disadds** - I //__love__// a good disadd/case debate so that's always fun.


 * -Politics** - While I've read politics, I think they are some of the most untrue arguments in debate. That being said, I see their strategic value and if you have a good politics disadd and can weigh it against case, then that's dope.


 * Topicality -** I tend to err aff on reasonability because, unless the aff is clearly untopical, most T arguments are time-sucks. If you can prove in round abuse though then I'll give T more weight.


 * The Theoryzz -** I used to hate theory but I now enjoy it. If you can argue theory well (Maggie) then you will make me happy. That being said, please do not vomit your theory shell at me, articulate the subpoints.

Reasons to reject the team (assuming you the theory debate):
 * Condo
 * Perfcon
 * Consult CPs
 * Conditions CPs
 * Fiat (50 State, Utopian, etc.) - depending on where this may just take out the alt for a K
 * New in the Two

Reasons to reject the argument, **not the team**:
 * Perm theory
 * Perm theory
 * Perm theory
 * Other pointless theory arguments


 * Performance/Critical Race Theory** - I haven't seen many performance debates so I am probably not the best judge for them. What's more, if your strat is Wilderson chances are I'll be sad. Unless the argument is very personal and brought home, sorry, (ie. Emporia at CEDA/NDT) I will probably get annoyed with it. Saying "the state's racist" is fine, but you're telling me the obvious. Too often these arguments shift from revolutionary strategies to strategies kritikal debates use to shut out alternative forms of discourse and win. I **will** vote on Wilderson...but I won't be happy. Now if there is a dope Schmitt vs. otherization debate, I could dig that.


 * Kritiks** - If you know me personally, you know I read Ks a ton in High School (often wacky ones like satirical arguments). While I love kritiks, I have few thoughts on their utilization in debate rounds. First is that if I am able to construct a better story that links to the aff __without__ evidence than you are able to __with__ evidence, then something is wrong. Second, for the love of god know what your K is saying. Please. Pretty please. And third, in the 2NR/2AR, frame the kritik and why I should care about what some dead French dude said. (Also, kritiks don't need an alt)

Notes: The following are kritiks I've read/am decently to well versed in what the author is actually saying (take this as you will):
 * Schmitt
 * Nietzsche
 * Camus
 * Agamben
 * Foucault
 * Generic Security and Capitalism
 * Jünger
 * Evola

The following are kritiks I am not well versed in and thus will need more than buzzwords:
 * DnG
 * One of Wilderson's ilk
 * Indigenous/Give Back the Land
 * Heidegger (depending on the breed you read)
 * Some post-post modernists and their ilk

Things to Boost Speaks
Be classy. Make stupid jokes. Make references to other teams, coaches, IRL events, etc. Engage with me. Make me laugh. Have fun! Specific things: Being able to articulate what the fuck "zero-point of the holocaust" (Dillon '99) actually means. No, really. + (.5)
 * //Successfully use a flash drive without wasting everyone's time (see above).//** //+// (.5)

Meta
Judges are lazy and stupid (as Parker Cronin once said) and I am no exception. Please don't make my job more difficult. I will call for evidence if it's super mega important and you keep saying "OMG call for this card!!". If I look grumpy, chances are it's because I'm a bitter old man, don't take it personally. I love debate and I want you all to have fun.

A take away point that I still laugh at when I think about the following quotation: "All you need to do is have fun...oh, and remember, winning is fun." - A. Wolfe

If you have any questions, please ask before the round or email me at piotr.heft@gmail.com