Waks,+Andrew

I competed in LD debate for four years at Westlake High School in Austin, Texas. I debated on the national circuit my junior and senior years, qualifying for the TOC with five bids during the latter. I’ve taught at VBI, NDF, and the Texas Debate Collective. I graduated from Swarthmore College in 2013. I previously attended New York University and was the Co-Director of LD Debate at the Bronx High School of Science from 2009 to 2011. I did Policy my freshman and sophomore years of college, and APDA/BP my junior and senior years.

__**HARVARD 2014**__

I default to viewing the resolution as a statement the debaters ought attempt to prove true or false. I am open to all arguments instructing me to evaluate the round differently or to use my ballot toward some other end. My favorite debates are those that involve executing a well-thought-out strategy. While I am not opposed to a more "brute force" comparison of utilitarian impacts, it doesn't get me quite as excited. I am fine with critical and pre-fiat positions or arguments, so long as (a) it is made very clear how I evaluate the debate under whatever framework you advocate for and (b) the argument or position does not rely on a mere appeal to intuition. I will vote on theory, but often find it annoying. I will find it less annoying if you have interesting, unique things to say about fairness or education. I will find it more annoying if you act as if theory catchphrases can take the place of warrants. I do not assume fairness to be a voter absent arguments from a debater demonstrating that it ought to be one. I enjoy good RVIs and creative approaches to answering theory.

I cannot flow as well as I used to, since I don't judge high school debate very much anymore. You can go fast, but top circuit speeds are definitely beyond me now. Also, I am a bit disconnected from the circuit, so if there are any terms or arguments that have become commonplace in the last two years, make sure you explain them fully and don't assume too much prior knowledge on my part.

Also, asking questions during prep is fine, but be aware that I probably won't pay attention to what's said. So, you probably want to only use it for clarifications. The reason I don't pay attention to it is (a) I think it's important for people to focus on making their actual CX good, and the incentive to do that is decreased when I pay attention to what happens during prep, and (b) prep time isn't a speech.

Please feel free to ask me any other questions you have before the round.

__**MY OLD, MORE DETAILED PARADIGM (CIRCA 2011)**__

BRIEF OVERVIEW (IF YOU'RE TOO LAZY OR RUSHED TO READ MY FULL PARADIGM): I'm a truth-tester by default, but argue for whatever conception of the resolution and I'll listen with an open mind. I can flow pretty well, but top speeds on the circuit tend to be just beyond my comfortable flowing speed. If you go too quickly or are unclear I'll say slow/clear once. Prestandards are fine if you develop them well and clearly explain how they function in terms of each debater's burdens. Critical arguments are cool, but should be run more slowly. If you run critical arguments, you should be extremely diligent about being understandable and approachable. I prefer that debaters stand during the round. I like well thought out strategies and positional cases more than evidence-heavy util clash (although util scenarios are still fine). I don't like theory, and am easily confused by complicated theory debates. I'll still vote off theory though. I like RVIs, turns on theory, and unique criticisms of theory.

GENERAL: I default to viewing the resolution as a statement to be proven true by the affirmative and either false or not true by the negative. This conception of the round (both as a general paradigm and in terms of the burdens entailed by a given paradigm) is by no means static, and I’ll willingly adjust the way I evaluate offense if compellingly instructed by the debaters to do so.

BURDENS: In lieu of compelling offense by either side, I will vote for the debater that I believe did the better job. For this reason, it is in your interest to give me explicit burdens analysis so I’m not forced to subjectively intervene.

PRESTANDARDS/A PRIORI: I have no issue with “a priori” arguments. However, there are a few important issues to keep in mind when running these arguments in front of me (or virtually any judge). First, you must very clearly tell me how the argument functions prior to the standard. Too often debaters just assert “and therefore the resolution is meaningless and you negate.” This is not at all sufficient. While I would still vote off of this argument if it were dropped (and likely ONLY if it were dropped), your speaker points would suffer. Second, if you are running multiple a priori arguments you need to explain how to prioritize the various arguments. This is important in the event that, for instance, the affirmative turns a negative a priori which claimed that morality doesn’t exist (perhaps by using a regular stock argument establishing that the negative has the burden of proof). If the negative still has a priori arguments that, say, definitionally prove the resolution false, I have no idea what to do now. Don’t let this happen. I will disregard the arguments and dock your speaker points. Third, don’t run multiple blippy a priori arguments. While I have a high threshold for theory and will certainly not automatically disregard such arguments because of “fairness,” you will still piss me off and lose speaker points.

CRITICAL/K: I really enjoy good, understandable critical or K debates. I am not particularly well-read (though I have read at least a minimal amount of critical philosophy), but I like to think of myself as relatively competent at grasping complex ideas. So, if you can run a critical position in an understandable and compelling way, such that I believe the argument and have learned something new or begun to look at the world differently as a result of your position, I will reward you with speaker points. Conversely, if you just spread through your policy debaters’ nonsensical Zizek Cap K (not to say I hate Zizek Cap Ks… I just need them to be good ones that you wrote and understand), your speaker points will suffer.

SPEED: I debated much faster than I think that I am capable of flowing, and I didn't even go that fast compared to current speeds on the national circuit. I was atrocious at flowing in high school, and not much has changed. I CAN NOT adequately follow rounds at the current top speed of the national circuit. I have started flowing on my laptop, which has helped. If you are clear and slow down for author names, justification numbers, and important things like the standard or contention labels it is unlikely that I will actively punish you for speed. I will try to get as much down as possible, but I won’t vote off of arguments I couldn’t understand. If you are unclear, I will say clear once and if you continue I will just get annoyed and dock your speaker points.

CX: I used to demand that people stood for CX, but it seems to be increasingly the case that no one really cares for that. I will say, however, that I steadfastly believe that a dedicated period of cross-examination time is essential. I am fine with flex-prep in that I think questions during prep are acceptable, but I do not think it is okay to remain silent for large portions of CX in order to prep or to simply merge CX and prep. Also, you should know that I don't really pay attention to questions asked during prep time, so make sure that if there's something you want ME to hear that you ask it in CX.

SPEAKER POINTS: I think I’ve talked a lot above about how I award speaker points. I will start at a 27 for an average/adequate performance, and you will get more points for fluency, good strategy, and being interesting. You will lose points for being unnecessarily confusing, sloppy, making bad/blippy arguments, or being offensive. It is unlikely I will reward below a 25 unless you actively offend me or are a blatant asshole. If I give you a 30, it means that I feel I have learned something from the round, that it kept my interest, and that you executed a compelling strategy with technical proficiency. **Also, at larger circuit tournaments, I tend to (rightfully) give 25.5-26.5 range speaks to debaters who might have received a 27-28 at a less competitive regional tournament. The reason is because I just don't think you deserve to clear. It's not that you're a bad debater, at all. The competition at these sort of tournaments is fierce, and the field is stronger— as such, my overall range of speaker points increases dramatically. At a lot of regional tournaments I tend to stick between 27 and 28.5, where a very large, more competitive tournament may see me give out ranges of 25-29.5 (and rarely a 30).**

THEORY: I don’t particularly like theory. I fundamentally do not think that fairness matters, and believe that theory has a chilling effect on interesting arguments about the truth of the resolution. I can think of few arguments I consider truly “abusive” (maybe delay counter-plans). If you run under-warranted theory that isn’t specific to the case or that lacks a reason why fairness is a voter, your speaker points will suffer a lot. If you run a well-developed theory shell against “clear abuse” that is specific to the case, I won’t dock your speaker points. I tend to have a lower threshold for responses to theory. Do not, however, assume that you can make one response against theory and be done. Make sure you handle it sufficiently, just as you would any other argument. Also, I really like turns on theory. Run them. I will vote off of them if your opponent can’t sufficiently deal with them. Perhaps more important than my philosophical views on theory is my basic inability to non-arbitrarily evaluate complicated theory debates. If a theory debate becomes extremely nuanced and fast, I will likely not be able to follow it. Keep that in mind. Also, "Aff Framework Choice" as a reason to automatically choose a particular substantive ethical framework or metaethical principle is absolutely, unequivocally idiotic. I will not listen to AFC arguments of this sort (I'll listen to AFC role of the ballot arguments though). You will receive no higher than 25 speaks if you run it in front of me.

PERFORMANCES/NARRATIVES/ASSORTED CRAZY STUFF: So, I have no inherent objection to people approaching debate rounds in novel ways. Usually my objection to these sort of positions is that I have virtually no conception of how I am supposed to evaluate the round. If you run something crazy and don't clearly explicate how I make my decision, I will be frustrated. If you do the same thing but I understand what I'm supposed to do with your narrative/dance/rap then I will vote off of it. I have one specific remark about narratives. It seems that most of the literature about narratives essentially says that it's important to couch our analytical arguments in stories that are relevant to people's lives. That indicates that presenting a compelling narrative should be a prerequisite to entering the analytical discussion, NOT that the narrative should replace the analytical discussion. If you're not going to have regular arguments in addition to your narrative, make sure your evidence justifies doing so and, again, that you clearly tell me how to evaluate the round.

OTHER: If I am judging you early in the morning, slow down a little. I am not a morning person. This sounds silly, but I am being very, very serious. I tend to be sloppier in my decisions when I'm tired in the early hours of a tournament. Please adjust accordingly. Also, I think net benefits standards are dumb because they beg the question of what constitutes a harm or a benefit-- that is, after all, the question that the standard is supposed to answer. Make this argument, since every round involves net benefits these days, and I will be happy. Also, I like grand strategic gestures. That is, I will always prefer a strategic AC activating its cool nuances in the 1AR or a layered, interesting NC over a really good clash of util scenarios. I don't actively dislike the latter, but I find the former more exciting. I also think it's nice when debaters begin their final speeches more slowly and give a very compelling overview of the ways and layers in which they will be winning the round. It gives me something of a frame or story that helps me better conceptualize the rebuttals and the round. It also makes it more likely that my RFD will precisely mirror your vision of the round, and clues me in to the fact that you understand the nuances of argument interaction on a macro-level, which is good for speaks.

PLEASE, if you have any further questions, feel free to email me at waks.andrew(at)gmail.com or ask me at a tournament or anywhere else you can get a hold of me. Have fun debating!