Carlton,+Brett

judging philosophy

FAQ Topicality threshold is extremely light. Cases must be topical according to the rules, thus aff must meet his/her burdens in round. However, I am not a stock issues judge. If you just win topicality aff, that, by no means you’ve won the round. RVI’s are not likely going to win a round. If aff keeps it until the rebuttals, I’ll consider it if neg didn’t say anything on it. It could be the hair that broke the camel’s back if neg is losing other key positions.

Kritiks are totally good with me. The majority of my undergraduate study has been in critical theory study. I am quite familiarized with the most famed debate authors- Foucault, Boudiriallard, Nietszche, etc. Critical Affs also go over very well with me. I’ll hear anything you have to say without presuppositions in the round. It is imperative for the majority of argument to be on the alt, alt solvency, and links. When you perm, it is imperative that you reinterpret the k through the perm. As in, what does the world look like after the aff plan passes with the perm. The main reason I don’t end up voting on k’s is because they don’t refer specifically back to framework. If a K is losing on either of those grounds, I won’t vote for it. If you can, make the K into 6 off case- 1) framework, 2) thesis, 3) links 4) implications, 5) alt, and 6) alt solvency. If you just read a bunch of cards in a row on a philosophy, the round is going to be a toss-up because that one sheet of paper is going to get muddled.

Specs- Don’t waste time running them if you’re going to kick them. Maybe just best don’t run them, period.

Counterplans: A good strategy. Be sure to include net benefits with solvency if you want to win them. Also, make all attempts to run cp’s that solve the aff case. Be warned, I will totally vote on perm is severance aff. I buy that theory and if argued well, it’s easiest to vote on presumption.

Pet Peeves:

Organization on flows. Be ready to give a road map within 5 seconds of ending prep time. If you don’t tell me where you’re arguing in concerns to DA, CP, case, etc., I will not flow what you’re saying. Be specific about the cards you’re reading across from and what your argument is. If you’re running a Solvency block, tell me to flow it off case. That’s just my style.

Honesty and Courtesy: yada yada yada don’t be a cheater.

Speed is good with me. I have yet to come across a high school student that could read faster than i can understand. Make your tags short and read those somewhat slowly. Thinking of tags like tl;dr posts is a good rule of thumb. If the other team challenges something like the tag doesn’t represent the card, I’ll hear it.

RFD: What will win you the round. Impact Calculation/Crystallization/parametrisization- This happens in the rebuttals and it is the ability to to interpret the round in one’s own words. This also means you have to parametrisize what you see as your strongest arguments are and say why those arguments win you the round. Impact calc is synonymous with ‘putting bodies on the flow’. You have to explain how many will die, become worthless, oppressed, etc. and how do I compare that with your opponent’s impacts. Impact calc really only matters if both teams don’t context the assumed criterion of net benefits, which is an utilitarian-based concept. If a kritik framework is contending that, the MPX debate changes to deontological ethics, which is counterintuitive t compared with utilitarianism. My best advice would be to kick whatever arguments on the flow that aren’t ‘offense’ arguments or STRONG defensive arguments. Turns come in here and you should turn everything, or try.

Most people don't do it, but I really like to see sign posting. Ex. Observation 1 Inherency A. The cuban embargo is in place because of an outdated mindset.

I'm a fair judge. I will intervene as least as possible in the round; not at all if I can help it. I usually go by tabla rosa and/or games.