JoeHurleyPio

Background: I debated for three years in Lincoln-Douglas (mixed with a little parliamentary debate and extemp) at Claremont High School on a fairly lay circuit, then quit the team my senior year and debated independently with Da Vinci Communications on the TOC circuit in California. I placed 10th at the NFL national tournament my junior year and auto-qualified my senior year, but was not able to compete due to my independent status. I attended UTNIF debate camp in Austin Texas for three years. I currently compete in collegiate parliamentary debate at Lewis and Clark. I have no conflicts. 30=you get to about quarters or sems 29=you should break 28=you are on the cusp of breaking 27= you probably handled something wrong or did something sleazy. But I can see giving you the benefit of the doubt. 26= if you mistreat your opponent, handle a number arguments wrong and make a lot of sleazy moves 25 and below= you definitely handled several things very wrong, mistreated your opponent, or did something very sleazy
 * Short version:** I can handle speed and will tell you when to slow down. I try to be tab with my ballot BUT my threshold for refuting arguments I don’t like is anywhere from barely to significantly lower. I am okay with any style of debate and have very little preference (I’ve been around the block as far as circuits go). I like plans and policy style arguments that are adapted to be run in lincoln-douglas. I personally dislike theory that is used strategically rather than for the purpose of changing norms in debate, and am fairly open to reasonability as a means of response.
 * Tabula Rasa:** I try to be generally tab, I will vote on almost any argument (excluding potentially offensive and morally reprehensible positions). That being said, if your argument is ‘bogus,’ by which I mean you are misreading an author or reading something that is generally untrue/blippy and unwarranted, I will have a lower threshold for refutation of that argument. I will very rarely intervene against an argument, and I try to maintain tab, but there is little I can to control my bias in some areas. If you have any questions about this please ask before the round.
 * Plans/counterplans:** I like plans, but I’m an LD debater and have preferences as to how they should be run in Lincoln-Douglas debate. If you are the affirmative and you are running a plan you should justify parameterizing the resolution, if you don’t, I see no reason why the negative case’s impacts (assuming it negates the holistic resolution) can’t be compared against the impacts of the affirmative plan. If you’re running a plan I also recommend you review the topicality portion of this paradigm. Now for the negative, on the same line of thought, if the affirmative justifies parameterizing the resolution I view the round in a policy lens, where a plan is competitive if it is not the affirmative advocacy and presents a comparative advantage. However, if the affirmative does not justify parameterizing and your CP is not exclusive from the affirmative ground (as per the resolution), you need to justify the exclusivity of your argument, otherwise I’ll be very open to permutations.
 * Cross applications:** If you are making cross applications, you need to justify why I should prefer your argument to your opponents. Too often debaters will just cross-apply a card to a card which says exactly the opposite. Compare the warrants, authors, whatever… anything is better than nothing and it makes determining the outcome a whole lot easier. Also I would recommend layering cross applications and original arguments for a stronger refutation, but that’s on you.
 * Burden division** (mostly for negatives): I am a firm believer that the division of burdens is not based on the definition of negative as “to deny the truth of.” I believe each topic presents its own unique burdens. For example in comparative resolutions (I.E. rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the United States criminal justice system) I think the neg should probably defend the converse of the resolution. If you don’t think that is the case tell me why, I’m open to arguments against that theory, and I believe each and every topic is fairly unique in this manner.
 * Theory:** If you are even considering running theory, you ought to read this. I DO NOT LIKE FRIVOLOUS THEORY. I am incredibly unlikely to vote on potential abuse. Unless you are put at some sort of structural disadvantage, I don’t think I should be punishing your opponent for a reason regarding post fiat norms in debate, unless I actually want that norm to occur or be the standard. If your theory isn’t normative, then go right ahead. But, with all that said, if there is real abuse happening in round that is unfair to you as a debater, run theory! It’s not that I won’t vote on frivolous theory, but as I said under the Tabula Rasa portion of this paradigm, my threshold for refutation declines very quickly for arguments like these. Make sure you impact your voters well. If you tell me how much your opponent is crippling fairness and education in the debate community, tell me why that justifies dropping him rather than the argument. I am open to paragraph theory. I also default to reasonability, I don’t see it as inviting intervention but rather as a method of making a warranted argument outside of the typical structure, but if you justify competing interpretations I’ll buy it. I’m open to RVI’s. But all in all, I’d rather see a substantive debate about the topic.
 * Topicality:** topicality for me is a drop the argument issue, but hey, if that means your opponents entire plan and set of advantages is no longer in play then it might as well be a drop the debater issue (unless you can win on offense on your opponents case, which would be really dope).
 * Kritiks:** I ran several kritiks while in high school and the summer camp I attended was very K friendly. I know from personal experience, it’s hard to win a kritik round unless your case is composed and written fairly well. Explain your alternative clearly and why it can’t be reached under the affirmative mindset, advocacy, or position. I also happen to believe that running a k does not mean you don’t have to respond to any of your opponent’s case on the line by line.
 * Speed:** I am fine with spreading, however I would prefer if debaters slowed down for taglines, authors, dense philosophy or science, plantexts, and critical elements of any arguments. I am not perfect, but I will try to do my best to flow your speed, I will yell clear if you are going too fast, and if my pen is flat on the page it’s probably not a good thing.
 * Speaker points:** my system for speaks is far more holistic than my ballot. This means I take into account presentation quality, strategy, politeness, etc.