Erlanger,+Thomas

I still look for creativity, internal coherence and logical consistency in a well-structured case. However, as much as I abhor historical counter-factuals and philosophers being quoted (misquoted) out of context, my prima facie role as a judge is not to intervene within the confines of a round. This is your round to win or lose and your obligation (not mine) to identify when and if your opponent is on shaky ground. I remain open to a well-crafted K, especially one with the additional weight of being relevant (in context) to the topic at hand. I am not partial to weak theory cases or arguments that would have me find based on a technicality or unfairness due to burden of structure (to me these arguments are a waste of time). Strong theory or spikes that relate in particular to your opponent’s case which, a defacto turn based on a singular impossible burden or lack of relevance, are fine. Regarding framework, I feel most comfortable adjudicating these rounds based on my background in analytic philosophy. Once a framework is clearly determined, this is the lens though which I, as a judge, have an obligation to evaluate arguments and evidence. But to be clear, I've see many debaters win the framework and lose the round. A lens is only valuable if you have something worthwhile to focus on. At the same time on the VC level, a commitment not to intervene often entails a refusal to weigh against competing values each of which may hold in the same or other possible worlds. Thus, in these cases I take an epistemic modesty approach to the framework debate and I am comfortable voting off the contention level alone. The clarity and cohesiveness of your argument and defense should make any decision in your favor clear and of course I accept being obligated to score for those contentions and evidence references that are clearly extended. I do find signposting and good crystallization helpful. I would rather understand why and how a card has weight or relevance to your argument during the round but will ask to see a card if I do not understand its relevance or potential weight. Taking your time to fully mine the value of warrants you would have me consider is appreciated vs an avalanche off dubious merit. Sometimes less is more. And yes I will advise (in round) if excessive speed or clarity is an issue in my ability to flow.