Orlob,+Brett

I debated two years of policy in high school. I have judged on and off for the last 20 years, spending significant time as a volunteer mentor and coach for UDLs in NYC and Seattle. I currently am the assistant coach at West Seattle High School, and I judge anywhere from 30-50 rounds per year, mostly in the Pacific Northwest. **General:** I consider myself as close to a true tabula rasa judge as possible. Even the maxim that everything is debatable is itself, debatable. I try very hard to remain impartial, and I do not intentionally intervene unless I must do so to make a rational decision (often the case in novice rounds) or if I must to avoid voting a grossly abusive 2ar. I prefer depth to breadth of argumentation. I would much rather hear two good, fully developed DA scenarios than five brief shells. Too often high school debate becomes a battle of cards being moved around the flow. I am much more interested in who understands the depth of the issue at hand. Even in advanced rounds, I often hear astounding leaps in logic, non-responsive evidence and warrants which don’t meet the burdens of the claim. And all the while, an opponent spews as many cards as possible without any thought to analysis of what’s already in the round. **Topicality:** Not my favorite kind of debate, but negative teams who argue it well will find a welcome audience in me. Negative does have the burden of a demonstrable violation if they expect a topicality ballot, but the rest is up for argument. My biggest problem with topicality debates is the rapid-fire, single word spew. “Standards: A: Ground, B: Education…” is the easiest way to have me stop flowing. Mainly because it’s impossible to flow that at the speed the average policy debater speaks. **Theory/Procedurals:** I generally don’t like these debates, but when an abuse story is clear, I will give a ballot on theory. But the abuse story must be clear and consistent. Don’t shadow extend your perf-con in 1ar and expect to go for it alone in 2ar. If the affirmative is at an unfair disadvantage, you’ll know it in the first 30 seconds prepping for 1ar. Likewise, if neg has theory objections they should be addressed as soon as possible and reiterated throughout the round if you expect an independent ballot on theory. I love them when they’re done right. I dislike the idea of conditional kritiks, however. Negation theory, the basis of conditional argumentation, is a method for determining the desirability or lack thereof for a policy within a set circumstance. The application of arguments about ontology or epistemology within a framework (negation theory) designed as a functional analysis of policy proposals seems illegitimate. Criticizing a mode of thinking then engaging in the same mode is contradictory, and you’re digging a theoretical hole for yourself if you do it while I hold a ballot. For me, the most persuasive kritiks spring from personal advocacy, and the more detail the better. I like well developed link stories, solid implication analysis and a sensible and fair framework. I also accept the idea of project, performative and kritikal affirmatives. So long as they present a rational means by which the resolution can be meaningfully analyzed, they are legitimate. Whether a particular case meets that standard is up to the debaters to prove. **Stock issues:** The negative owns the status quo until they stake out other ground. Should the negative decide to defend the status quo, I will not vote for a case which cannot demonstrate a significant and harmful problem to be solved, a lack of solutions in the status quo and a topical plan which solves the problem. To vote for such a plan would be irrational, and negative will have a very easy time convincing me of such. But negative must explain why such a vote would be rational…please, don’t fail to make your brilliant solvency press a voter by not impacting it! **Fiat:** Fiat is often abused and other times terribly misunderstood. Whether negative has fiat is up in the air in my book, and I could vote either way depending on the arguments in the round. Multiple actor and object fiat are obviously abusive, and any competent debater will likely be able to prove that in front of me. Also, politics links which assume political capital exchange before plan passage is fiat-poaching. The political environment created by the plan is a legitimate link to a disadvantage. The political environment created by the attempt to pass the plan is not. = Caveat Emptor: =
 * Experience: **
 * Kritiks: **

My preferences explained herein are just that; preferences. I will not vote on my preferences alone, so the burden remains to make the arguments which take advantage of my views. And of course, I will allow a team to argue that my approach is wrong, and I will give that argument consideration – even if it is unlikely to stand up to rigorous attack.