Eckstein,+Justin

Justin Eckstein
LD experience 4 years College Policy experience 4 years

Some general notes about having me in the back of the room. First, I do not care who you are and what you are arguing. Just be sure to provide a way for me to evaluate whatever you’re doing. That means if you want to get up and dance—go for it, but make sure you tell me how to evaluate that argument in relation to what the other team is saying. I ran Nietzsche as an argument a lot which means I have no ethical predispositions towards any arguments. Second, I am REAL lazy. You may say, well Justin why does that matter to me? I am glad you asked—that means I will always look for the easiest way out of a round. Dropped cheap shots and dropped A prori arguments (and I mean cold dropped) is game over unless you can outweigh it. That means cover your ass when you’re debating in front of me. If you have any specific questions feel free to ask me.

General notes on speaks; I am the opposite of a speak fairy. My average speaks are 27, that means before you start the round that is what you start with. If you are funny, bold, and strategic your speaks go up. If you are sloppy, unclear, and/or a Dbag your speaks will go down.

Kritikal arguments—if for whatever reason you do know anything about me you would know that I was a kritikal debate. This does not mean, however, that I am familiar with the particular philosopher or theorist that you are talking about. That means treat me like I am dumb and explain the argument very clear and be sure to give me a lot of examples. I will need something to hang my hat on at the end of the round. I do not believe that K needs an alternative and I will vote on terminal defense (i.e. there is no reason to value life etc). But, if you decide to run a K with an alternative I treat it like a counterplan with a kiritkal net benefit.

Oh ya, I prefer depth versus breath.


 * LD**

For LD I do not have any particular view so that means do whatever you want. If you want to try and make it a policy debate round, I don’t care do it. I did NDT debate for 4 years so I doubt that you can speak faster than I flow, but that doesn’t mean if you are not fast that you should be in front of me. I like slow strategic debate more than fast, messy, unclear debate. If I can’t understand I will yell clear, that doesn’t mean stop talking but make sure I can understand you. If I yell clear and you keep going on your marry way it will be your fault if I don’t flow something. I like well developed standards debate I believe that the standard should act as a filter for arguments that means I want explicit analysis as to why argument do and do not link to the standard as well as weighing of arguments in relation to the standard. In other words, do all the work weighing all the arguments or don’t blame me for a decision that you do not like.

Apparently a lot of people run T now in LD. I can understand T and will vote on it but I expect a lot of work, so unless you decide to go all in the last negative speech I will not vote on it.
 * Policy**

I love me some policy debate and I will go through the different kinds of arguments and how I view them. Just so you know, and as I said before, I have no predisposition to evaluate around, you can tell me to do whatever you want. However, if left to my own judging paradigm I will default to a policy maker.

I am kind on the fence when it comes to T. For a long time I really hated it and thought it was dumb. Recently, however, I found it very interesting. Take that as you well. I believe that you need to do a lot of work on it to win it in front of me. I need clear extensions of each part of the shell and weighing of different impacts and standards, i.e. why limits out weigh predictability etc.
 * T**

I love the disad, I like lots of hyper specific link stories. A way to get good speaks in front of me is in the block you explain the whole story in an overview and then from there extrapolate other specific link stories. Be sure to relate the impact to the case and if you can show how the DA turns the case its a lot better.
 * DA**


 * CP**

I believe that counterplans can be dispo, what does this mean? I will only vote on dispo if it is totally dropped—you can thank Zach Westerfield for that one. I believe that a Counter plan has to have a net benefit. Perms have to have a net benefit or dropped for me to vote on them. Also, if you ran a CP that means presumption flips aff unless you give me a reason it should not. That means if it is close on the CP with out any analysis as to why I shouldn’t err aff, I go aff.


 * The K**

What I said before very much applies here too above. I just want to say once more, just because I ran the K a lot does not mean I know what you’re talking about, make sure to have good overviews very explicitly explaining the story. Also, I believe that a perm must have some kind of net benefit, and if you run the K with an alternative, again I believe, unless told otherwise, presumption flips aff. Also, I think debates about the status of the alternative are very, very dumb—so please don’t waste my time on this question. It only makes sense if the run multiple Ks with alternatives and CPs.

Yes, I ran them a lot, staked rounds on them, and would job people for a while if they did not vote on them. Let me make VERY CLEAR my view on the cheap shot. If it is dropped and never talked about in the round it is game over. If it is dropped and then answered later in the round, like lets say the 1nc had a cheap shot in T, it was dropped in the 2ac, and exploded in the block, I will give the 1ar a little leeway but it wont get you very far, but I am very open to the weighing of theory objectives. However, let me also note that I HATE the proliferation of tons of cheapshots. If the round becomes just a bunch of cheap shots everyone gets 20s and I flip a coin to decide.
 * Cheap Shots**