Markoff,+Andrew

Andrew Markoff Georgetown University Bronx Science

__**Blake (2013) Update**__

One thing that has bothered me lately is the "emphasis arms race" when cutting cards. When I started debate, there were underlined cards and you'd maybe bold some good quotes. Now there's bolding, boxing, bolding and boxing, bolding, boxing, and blowing up the font... a lot of effort is put into the aesthetics of each card to make it //look// better than it actually //is//.

NOTE: I am totally guilty of this in my own work, but since it's an arms race there's really no incentive for unilateral disarm.

This isn't something I'm extremely riled up about. BUT, at Blake, I will try to adjust for the "emphasis arms race" by changing the formatting of your cards to some uniform standard whenever possible. Obviously that only applies when debaters jump me cards. I will never change one team's formatting and not the other's; it has to be balanced. Maybe sometimes it won't be necessary. But just be aware that I'll be messing around with this idea.

__**Philosophy**__

I have not judged a lot, so I won't pretend that I have serious argument preferences or strong default settings. A few things that are important:

1. Evaluating debates. Three ideas:

a) Dropped arguments/flowing. I understand that things never "line up" perfectly, but I **strongly prefer** if you structure your speeches so that your arguments line up to the other team's. The big overview can be a valuable tool, but not if you just say a lot of things and expect me to figure out that it all fits together. If you drop things, they generally become true!

One area where this presumption for clash may be flipped is for obvious "big picture/framing/uniqueness" arguments. For example, if the 2NC says "no value to life means that extinction impacts don't matter" and the 1AR drops it, I don't think that "the block didn't apply this to all of our specific impacts" is a very persuasive 2AR.

b) The corollary to that is that you should always be flowing.

c) Big picture. You need to do this too. Impacting arguments, recognizing where the points of clash are. Making **comparisons**, not just **arguments**.

2. I like reading cards. Maybe just a curiosity thing. Generally, the team that debates the ev better will win because they can color my reading of the evidence. I can't remember the last time that reading cards has changed my initial inclination about who won a debate, but that doesn't mean it's alright to have bad cards.

3. Affs with no plan. I enjoy hearing these, especially if they are well-constructed with critiques of/interesting perspectives on the state, debate, the topic, etc. That said, I also think that topicality ("framework") is a very good, interesting, and relevant argument with extremely important implications for debate's pedagogical purpose.

4. Won't auto-kick CPs unless you tell me to.

5. Specificity is always nice. That doesn't necessarily mean specific strategies. If you have one, great. If not, specificity can often be achieved by putting in a little extra effort to apply your arguments, read the other team's cards closely, etc.

Questions? Ask! markoffa@gmail.com