Hogan,+Tim

I thought I was a tab judge until I told debaters I was a tab judge. Some of you have interpreted that to mean that I enjoy terrible debate. But I don't. I'm still a tab judge, but I am sympathetic to certain arguments. This does not mean I will not consider certain arguments at the expense of one's I "buy," it just means that in front of me there are certain strategies that make more sense for you to employ.

1.) I like smart substantive debate. That's really vague but here's an example: if on the death penalty topic you hit a terrorism, genocide, desertion, consent etc. NC, I much prefer case turns to condo bad. That's not to say that I won't listen to theory here, because I will. But seriously, if we're at St. Marks and you still don't have answers to those cases (other than your awesome generic theory) then you're either lazy or stupid. All I ask is that you do something interesting. I like debaters who engage the arguments as opposed to skirt them with some whack theory. For the love of God you have no idea how boring/painful it is to judge subpar debates, please do something intelligent/interesting so I don't want to shoot myself. I'll give extra speaks for innovative arguments.

2.) Theory is a necessary evil. Read that last sentence a couple times. If it's not checking some clear in round abuse, I don't really want to hear it, and am less likely to vote for it. However, if someone sufficiently develops 3 minutes of "your case has confusing words" theory and you drop/mishandle it, I will not hesitate to vote against you for both your strategic short-sightedness and the time/quality your opponent has put into the argument.

3.) Some specific negative case biases: I hate the democratic choice negative. I really hate it. What a brilliant argument: the affirmative says SOMETHING, therefore it forecloses any possibility for society to discuss and decide for themselves which policies they like. How innovative. It also makes for extremely entertaining rounds. Not to mention it leaves open the whole gamut of topic literature for discussion. If you hit this in front of me, just argue that the affirmative offers a moral suggestion, not an injunction or policy requirement. Or turn it and argue that the NC forecloses discussion of the topic which hinders democratic deliberation. Those two responses are round winners for me. With regard to critiques of justice that claim its non-existence: I am afraid to endorse ethical paradigms that do not account for cruelty. I find the standard "but what about the Holocaust!"argument, if developed properly, persuasive. If your theory of ethics can't account for genocide and terrible things that people do, why should be excited about endorsing it?

4.) Don't run AC's with 4+ burdens. Good theory is preferred as an answer here. Same goes for a priori's. I don't like voting on them because I feel that they are generally unwarranted as pre-standard. In general I'm not a truth-tester. I prefer some mechanism to weigh offense and defense.

5.) Most standards debates (to me) appear to boil down to a utilitarian/deontology debate. Some don't, obviously, so don't apply your blocks when that is the case. But I do appreciate a decent framework debate. When you decide to dump your deontology block and you opponent drops their utility block, you should tell me how I'm supposed to decide which theory is preferable given the 24 responses on the frameworks. Don't just extend one reason to prefer and assume the other 23 responses on the flow go away.

6.) I should be able to flow all speeds, just make sure you're speaking English (or German) and not slurring every word together.

Once again, all of these considerations are arguments that I am sympathetic to. I still remain non-interventionist to the best degree I can.

With all that said, debate is about you and not me. You get to craft the arguments you like, and argue in a style that you enjoy. Have fun, it's a great activity and you'll miss it when you're done. I generally start my RFD's with some form of "this was awful." Don't let that ruin your day, I just have pseudo-ridiculous standards whenit comes to debate quality, and I recognize it.