Altman,+Josh

I debated for four years at Byram Hills High School (NY), and I qualified for the TOC my senior year. I try my best to enter the round tabula rasa, but I definitely have certain views on particular arguments in LD.

I was mostly a framework debater in high school, so I really enjoy philosophical debates. I would say that I am well-versed in the applications of different philosophies in LD, but I will not assume that your arguments have warrants. I find that many judges assume that because you say Korsgaard or Cummiskey that anything thereafter is instantly warranted. Also, if your framework is particularly dense, please be thorough in your extensions and explain the specific application of these extensions. Additionally, if parts of your framework are "take-outs" to other common frameworks, you need to explain the warrant of this particular application. Moreover, if you have a philosophically dense framework, I would appreciate if you explain why your arguments generate either an obligation or permissibility (depending on the topic). I do nto default to competing worlds or truth testing, so you need to make the argument. Do not forget to weigh either!
 * Framework**

I do not default to competing interpretations or reasonability, so if you want me to use a certain theory paradigm, make the argument. I am fine with paragraph theory, just make sure it is fleshed out in case. If the debate devolves into a fairness vs. education drill, please do some weighing! I view theory as a legitimate and necessary check on abuse that may go on in round. Yet, as a debater, I always found it annoying when my opponents would run frivolous shells because a lot of my pre-tournament prep went to waste. That being said, I will still evaluate frivolous and/or dumb theory shells (e.g. AFF must have a plantext, debaters must say "end quote" after reading cards). However, I will give leeway to your opponent making "no abuse claims" and/or doing some work on the standards debate, if I deem your shell frivolous. Same goes to saying "fairness is not a voter." I think theory is a two way street in terms of RVIs, but you can definitely make arguments for why your opponent does not get access to an RVI. I think that arguments about why only AFF gets access to an RVI are probably false, but again, I will not hold it against you, if you win the argument.
 * Theory**

I debated tricks, so I know the general strategies (contingent standards, a prioris, hidden theory spikes, etc.). Make sure that when you are extending tricks that you extend the full argument, and the burden is on YOU to make sure that the trick is developed in case. I completely understand the "GOTCHA!" high of using tricks, but you should exercise good judgment (READ: if it is //painstakingly// clear that you will win the round, don't go triggering skep and permissibility all over the flow). I will give some credence to new arguments against poorly executed/written tricks, so beware. I do not look forward to voting on dumb tricks.
 * Tricks**

I view debate as an adversarial activity, and I think one of the definitional aspects of debate is that you and your opponent must argue on a given issue (be it substance, theory, meta-theory, etc.) However, I do not believe that arguing over whether or not micropolitical positions belong in debate is a debate worth having. Generally, micropolitical positions (at least the way I have seen them run) seem to advocate for a positive change in the activity or in society at large. Yet, it is often difficult for your opponent to combat such a case because they will more likely than not agree with your views but be unable to take an opposing stance. People say that theory and K's are like micropolitics because they advocate something besides the topic, but I find that argument fallacious. Theory and Ks are somehow related to substance or at least the application of substance in round, while micropol is rooted in something that probably happened outside of a specific round. As a judge, I believe the roll of the ballot is to vote for the better debater, and I do not view micropolitical arguments as "debate arguments." Thus, I see no reason why I should punish your opponent by dropping him/her. Personally, I think debate is the wrong forum for micropol. This is not to say that I don't agree with the issue at hand, I just think the issue is marginalized by a 13 minute time constraint. If you decide to run micropol in front of me, which I do not recommend, I will be very open to general answers.
 * Micropolitics**

I start at a 26.5, so anything below means that you were rude or offensive. 27- you were average 28- you were good 29- you were great and should break 30- you were perfect and have a shot at winning the tournament
 * Speaks**

I wouldn't go as far as saying I am a "speaks fairy," but I will certainly be fair.


 * Miscellaneous**
 * I am fine with speed, but you must be clear and/or slow down for author names. If you are blazing through an AC with spikes and hidden a prioris, it probably makes the most sense to clearly label or at least transition between these arguments. I will yell clear **twice**, then I will stop flowing.
 * Don't be rude to your opponent. Don't try to take advantage of your opponent in CX.
 * Please judge a situation. If you are a varsity debater hitting a novice, it is probably not wise to run three theory shells. Exercise good judgment, folks.
 * I am fine with the LARP, but you should not assume I know all of the jargon. I know its application in LD but not much beyond that.
 * I am all for professionalism, so PLEASE come to the round pre-flowed. I will dock your speaks if you need to preflow once you enter the room.
 * The best advice I can give to debaters in front of me is to make it abundantly clear where your offense (on substance or theory) is! You should go into the NR and 2AR asking yourself, where is my offense, and how can I clearly extend it.
 * If you are making pre-fiat arguments, you need to warrant why I should be obligated to vote on them.

If I did not answer any of your questions here, please feel free to ask me in round!