Crowell,+Ian

Conflicts: Fenwick (IL), Barrington (IL)

Harvard 2018 note: I haven't been in the loop with the topic that much, so don't assume I will know the generic arguments about plea bargaining.

I debated varsity Lincoln Douglas for three years at Fenwick High School (IL), with two years on the national circuit. Currently, I am a freshman debating for Boston University’s American Parliamentary team. If you have any questions that aren’t answered in the paradigm, the best way to reach me is at icrowell@bu.edu.
 * LD Judging Paradigm (last edited: 2/14/18)**

My overall judging philosophy is to be as tab as possible. I’ll vote for the arguments that are best impacted and weighed in the round, so however you want to do that is up to you. I’m fine with any arguments, because as long as you explain the warrants and do comparative analysis on why you’re winning there is no reason for me to discredit them. I’m someone who hated/hates judges who intervene and inject their own biases in rounds, so I’ll do my best to not be that person.

However, obviously there are certain areas where you can make my decision easier (this is a paradigm after all), so here they are:


 * Speed:** I can follow speed pretty well, but I haven’t heard spreading in a while so I’d say my best guess as to how you can make my flow the cleanest is if you go 70-75%% of your max speed. However, you can go faster //if you signpost well//. Overviews and good signposting make my job a hell of a lot easier (I’ll do my best, but as someone who is notorious for forgetting to signpost while I’m debating I know that it can be frustrating). Slowing down at author tags is highly recommended. Also, **please note: rebuttals should not be spreading off prewritten blocks.** Engage with your opponent’s warrants and responses, and don’t assume that 5 prewritten arguments will be sufficient to play defense.


 * Traditional/Stock/Framework Cases:** I try to lump all of these together, because I do enjoy a well-executed classic framework debate. Stock and traditional debates can be incredibly well done if the framework arguments and contention/advocacy level arguments are well researched and extended in the round, and by no means will I avoid giving you high speaks simply because you decide to run a straightforward case. I’m currently a philosophy minor, so I’ll be able understand basically any framework as long as it’s explained well in case and in round. I’m familiar with a ton of philosophy, like classic Deontology/util, autonomy frameworks, political philosophy (Locke, Mill, Nozick, Constitutionalism, Libertarianism, Rawls, international law, political discourse frameworks, etc.), Winter & Leighton, oppression frameworks, normative frameworks, meta-ethics, etc. Seriously, go for anything if you don’t think it falls under high theory like Deleuze. Make sure your substance is concrete enough that your advocacy clearly impacts to the framework and gives me enough weighing/impact analysis for me to actually pick you up.


 * Policy (LARP):** I think policy arguments are great, especially if there is some alternative framework that is not a generic util or consequentialism advocacy. My only requests is to please oh please leave your opponent some ground by not spec-ing them out of the debate. I do not want to be adjudicating Topicality debates because you wanted to be sneaky. That being said, creative plans and creative counterplans will enhance the debate and (if executed well) earn you high speaks. Obviously, just be sure to weigh impacts and compare between the possible policy outcomes present in the debate. Breaking down the two worlds and comparing impacts in your rebuttals will give me a clearer ballot.


 * Kritiks/Performace:** I assume these cases are still huge on the circuit, and go for it. Kritiks are a valuable case form because they force us to analyze the practices that are present not only in the topic, but in the general world of debate. Don’t expect me to sympathize with you if you run a non-topical K and then get pulverized by someone who actually knows how to beat the K with T. If you are leaving the realm of the topic, T and theory arguments start to hold much more weight when discussing norm setting. K topics I’m at least mildly familiar with: Marxism/anti-Cap/anti-Neoliberalism, anti-Colonialism/Imperialism, anti-militarism, Foulcault/post-modernism, some anti-Blackness (Wilderson), some queer theory.

Side note: I really don't care whether you pick the weighing mechanism to be the Role of the Ballot or the Role of the Judge. The difference only matters to me if literally the entire debate comes down to the small distinction, which in that case the round probably went off the rails at some point.


 * Theory/T:** If you think there is legitimate abuse happening in a case, by all means run theory and/or T. I am also totally fine with picking up strategic theory or T if it’s well-run and designed to use up your opponent’s rebuttal time. Frivolous theory is strongly discouraged; I want to adjudicate substantive debates and that becomes much harder if you run 7 minutes of theory in the 1NR or 4 minutes of theory in the 1AR because that’s your debating style. I default to no RVIs, drop the arg, and reasonability (I am of the opinion that analytical theoretical arguments can hold weight even if they are not structured in a 'standard' theory shell). I also default to no disclosure, and being from a small school with little nat circuit presence, it'll very difficult for you to win disclosure in front of me. For T/theory vs. the K debates, while I am fine evaluating arguments about how theory comes before the role of the ballot, it's probably just a strategically better idea to weigh your theory norms and impacts under a ROB as well.


 * High Theory (Deleuze and whatnot):** I will do my best to evaluate a Deleuzian framework, but these theories need to be well explained for me to vote on. Don’t simply assume I’ll know your jargon either! I apologize for not being a great high theory, but I just don’t have a lot of experience facing it in rounds and I don’t want to be the reason that you got a loss because the framework was too complex for me to learn in a 45 minute round, so be sure about your case before you run it in front of me.


 * Existentialism:** While I don’t expect to see many of these cases, if you want to run Nietzsche or other Existentialist philosophers, go for it. Apparently I’m moderately famous for running existentialist performance cases on the circuit, and I consider this philosophy my expertise so I love seeing it in round.

27 – not good speaking, but passable on varsity 28 – average varsity speeches 29 – well-executed round; could have helped the case slightly with better warrants, impacting, etc. 29.5 – incredible round, with well thought out arguments and time allocation 30 – quite literally an unbeatable speech. I have only seen a few ever, and only executed this maybe once or twice.
 * Speak policy:** I’ll probably be fine disclosing speaks, but I’ll let you know after the round. If not, my speak policy will generally operate like:


 * Underview:** Remember to have fun! Debate is a learning experience, and winning or losing doesn't change the fact that you meet so many amazing people and have incredible experiences participating in this activity. I totally understand the desire to win, but if winning is everything, then I think we've lost sight of why we joined debate in the first place. Just please don't be an asshole and be cordial in round. We're all here to enjoy ourselves.