Chen,+Jerry

Updated 2/7/15

Conflicts: Lexington, Harker

Jerry Chen Lexington High School '13 University of Chicago '17


 * All of the paradigmatic issues below are merely //preferences.// Read whatever arguments you want - but be aware of my paradigmatic leanings since those do often affect decisions when rounds are very close or messy.**


 * My paradigm seems restrictive at first glance to most people because I think alternative paradigms encourage and often produce //bad and blippy// debates that are incredibly messy and unenjoyable to sit through. Generally speaking, I enjoy any kind of debate as long as it's a good debate. I believe that my paradigm best outlines that type of debate, so I recommend you at least try to adhere to my paradigm a little.** **Disregard my paradigm for round robins; I will assume a tabula rasa stance on (almost) all issues. Ask if you have any specific questions.**


 * If you are a national circuit debater and you are debating a novice/JV/lay debater who is not familiar with all the circuit trends and shenanigans, try to make it an educational round for them. Don't be a douchebag and spread them out at your top speed. I thought this would be pretty obvious, but apparently it is not. Still sit down early though, if you're clearly winning. Just be reasonable.**

**Short Version**
Any style of debate can be good debate. I prefer substantive and topical debates. I don't like theory. I am bad at flowing. I give low speaks.

**Long Version**

 * __I don't really want to hear a theory debate__**. They’re repetitive, boring, blippy, and really frustrating to evaluate and listen to. Please don’t run theory in front of me unless you really need to. Yes, this means you will actually have to debate the topic and do research, instead of whining for half your speech time against an opponent who decided to suck it up and do work. This doesn’t mean you can be as abusive as you want. **In extreme cases where your opponent is running something so unfair that you literally cannot win the round, I will likely be sympathetic to a theory argument. My distaste for theory doesn't //necessarily// apply to topicality, but my threshold for evaluation will be somewhat similar, due to the prevalence of frivolous T debates nowadays.** Keep in mind, however, that if your opponent is actually being unfair, it’s probably a stupid strategy anyway, and you should suck it up and beat it. There is no argument in debate that cannot be sufficiently answered by a substantive argument. **I reserve the right to gut check on all theoretical/non-substantive issues in the round.** I don’t believe in tabula rasa, and I think that kind of mindset just hides stupid decisions and encourages stupid debate. If you think you’re a reasonable debater, go ahead and pref me. If not, please don’t.


 * __Make real arguments.__** An argument must have a **claim, warrant, and impact** for me that I understand when it's first introduced for me to be able to vote on it. For example, I think that arguments in the aff that have new impacts/implications in the next speech can be contested, but as long as the argument is complete I'll evaluate it normally. I reserve the right to disregard arguments that don’t have warrants in the first speech, it even if they are conceded. The fact that debaters can make entire careers from just spreading out their opponents with blipstorms is silly. The burden of proof is on the debater making the arguments to show why they are legitimate.


 * __I default to risk of offense.__** I don’t understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp. If defense is sufficient to win, does that mean any contestation of an argument is terminal defense? The only clear and logical brightline is having offense. I think this is true both on the framework debate and the contention debate. For example, I don't think calculation indicts on util frameworks are presumption/permissibility triggers. "Washing" substance to trigger presumption or permissibility doesn’t really make much sense to me in most scenarios, although they might apply in some extreme cases. I'm very receptive to arguments that **permissibility and skepticism are defense and reasons to prefer an alternate framework.** **Defense can’t win rounds.**


 * __I am really bad at flowing, so slow down__**. Maybe I'm an outlier, but I honestly just don't believe that most judges on the circuit can keep up with many fast debaters, regardless of how clear they are. As a result, your best bet is to slow down when debating in front of me, probably to around 80% or 90% of your top speed. I will tell you if you’re unclear, but if I need to say it multiple times it will reflect poorly on your and probably reduce your chances of winning. You can probably read my face while I'm flowing. **Slow down after the tag to emphasize author names, and pause before you start reading the card**. Otherwise, it sounds like it's part of the sentence and I probably won't get it on my flow. It's not my fault that I didn't catch something if you didn't feel like being clear, and I will not be afraid to admit that in my decision.


 * __I am not a point fairy__**. LD speaker points are inflated. I'll try to average a 27.5 and I'll adjust depending on the field. Generally, 28.5 means you deserve to clear, and anything above that will be rare. Speaker points are inherently arbitrary so I don't think there's a clear metric you have to meet to get good speaks in front of me. Here are some things I look for in determining speaks, in order of importance: //strategic choice// on the flow, //soundness of argumentation//, and //clarity// of speaking. Debate is a communicative activity, so it’s your job to convince me that you deserve good speaks and/or the W.

__**Don't miscut evidence**__. For some reason, the LD community doesn't have clear norms regarding evidence ethics. **If you read evidence that is miscut or misrepresented, you will lose with 0 speaker points.** No exceptions. There is no need to read an evidence ethics violation in the form of a theory shell. However, you should be prepared to stake the round if you are going to make an evidence ethics challenge. Evidence ethics is a serious issue and should not be taken lightly. Once an challenge is made, I will stop the round and verify whether or not the evidence in question is in fact miscut. Claims about clipping need to be **verifiable** with an audio or video recording. Generally speaking, I would prefer that you do not bracket evidence. If you do bracket evidence in any meaningful way, explain the purpose for the brackets after reading the card name. The same goes for evidence that summarizes positions of other authors, because otherwise you are reading a strawman.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round.