Sternberg,+Jordana

> > > > > > >> >>
 * =**I do not process argument interactions and details as quickly or thoroughly as do current debaters and argument coaches. If you do not tell me** **explicitly** **how the debate //across flows// adds up in your favor, I might not see it as you do. (Debaters should do this for any judge -- it is part of the game -- but it is a //necessity// if I am judging you. This is not about flowing, it is about mental processing.)**=
 * **I prefer debates about the topic.**
 * **I am not a good judge for performance debates and/or identity debates. I often have trouble understanding the message intended by the speech act of the performance/identity team (although I do understand the goals), and I am highly sympathetic to the argument that debates should be about an agreed topic.**
 * **I disagree that debate is bad and it is difficult for me to understand why I should vote for a team who deliberately came to participate in an activity that they claim is bad.**
 * **I most value intelligent and logical arguments that are 1) explained well and 2) based on sources who have knowledge and experience in the areas about which they are opining. I think academic research is fun and rewarding.**
 * **Conversely, I really, really despise "arguments" that are meant to confuse the opponent and/or do not make sense on face and/or have long paragraphs of tags that use words I can't understand even after looking them up. This probably includes all "postmodern" stuff.**
 * **Do not assume that I know your evidence or your authors thoroughly. Also, I might not put the pieces together the way you think they fit together without your saying how they fit, and I might see other ways the pieces fit together than no one talked about. You can adapt to this easily by self-narrating -- say how things interact and why that means you win, don't just rely on the line-by-line.**
 * **Conversely, I think lengthy overviews, especially pre-written ones, do more harm than good. There is no need to spend 90 seconds at the top of the flow saying things you're then going to refer back to on the line-by-line -- say it where it applies. But summary headlines at the top of each flow are good.**
 * **K arguments that I think can be good:**
 * **negative criticisms that are contextualized to the affirmative and offer a reason to reject it**
 * **affirmative arguments that criticize the status quo and offer a change that is preferable to the status quo**
 * **K arguments that I do not want to judge:**
 * **high theory and philosophy, including all manner of "nothing is real and everything is nonsense"**
 * **arguments that people identify by someone's name**
 * **utopian alts**
 * **alts that are not, or cannot be, described in concrete terms**
 * **any argument that says that death is good** **--** **__//"death good" and arguments that advocate suicide can be reasons to reject the team.//__ Among other warrants, these arguments are privileged and insensitive.** (This does not apply to ordinary impact calculus where it is acknowledged that death might occur by voting for a particular side but argued that on balance voting for that side is still better.)


 * __Theory:__**

Do not assume that I know -- or care about -- what theory arguments and tricks are in vogue or how I am "supposed to" vote on them. I am much more likely to listen to and decide based on the actual arguments in the debate round. For example, an argument like "perm do the counterplan" doesn't mean much to me unless you explain what you mean by that and why it is a reason the counterplan doesn't compete. Same for "textual and functional competition."

I may not vote the same way on the same theory issue in two different debates.

I might not recognize a "K trick" if you don't say what your actual argument is. This means that without explanation, the tagline of a K trick that is recognizable to you as a full argument probably doesn't mean more to me than what the tagline says.

More generally, I might not know the full intention of arguments that have been reduced over time to a tagline that "everyone" recognizes but actually have more of a story to them than what the tag (or card) says at face value.


 * __Topicality:__**

I tend to be the 1 in 2-1 decisions about T, in both directions. I think it is because I am much more big picture about deciding which interpretation is best for debate and I am listening much more closely for arguments about that than I am to the fourth subpoint on your "limits DA" block on which it seems other judges are often basing their decisions.

I learned and debated topicality before there started to be "disads" and offense/defense within T, so I don't see it that way as automatically as you do, and the micro-subpoints will not be as important to me as the meta of the interpretation and the violation and the arguments about how the interpretations in question would impact debates about the topic.


 * __My background__**

I coach at Westminster. Prior to Westminster, I coached at Pace Academy from 2008-2013. I debated nationally for Lexington and Wake Forest, but then I was mostly out of the activity for years while going to law school and then practicing law. I have been back to high school debate since 2005.

I would not have left my "legal career" for debate if not for the educational benefits of this activity and the opportunity to help young people obtain and enjoy those benefits. This is true of many coaches who left or did not pursue other careers, but I am saying it out loud here to inform your decisions about how to debate in front of me.

You can reach me at wildcatstalkfast@gmail.com with any questions.


 * More on my views re performance/Identity**

The bottom line is that I am not the best judge to evaluate these debates. Some of the reasons for this are as follows:

> > > This is not intended to exclude academic discussions of topics that affect the real lives of the debaters in the round, but I disagree with a pedagogy that stakes the win or loss on characteristics or experiences of the individual competitors who are seeking a win or those of their opponents.
 * 1) In many of the debates I've seen in which performance and/or identity is a central issue of the 1AC -- and I have watched a lot of them - I have a hard time understanding what it is the affirmative team is asking the judge to vote for, even though I do understand the goals in concept when discussing them outside of the debate round. This is often also true of my comprehension of negative positions that involve performance and/or identity. (I have not had this issue in debates that I am actually judging, but this may be that teams either strike me or adapt their arguments to me.)
 * 1) For a variety of personal and pedagogical reasons, I think that in an activity in which there is a win and a loss, the potential harms outweigh the potential benefits of including an explicit discussion of the personal identity and/or personal experiences of the competitors as criteria for the win and loss.
 * 1) Conversely, I think that debating about topics that decidedly do NOT personally affect the debaters in the round provides excellent practice in critical thinking with far less risk of emotional harm to the debaters in the round. To take a highly trivial example, debating about whether jellybeans are better than chocolate provides practice in thinking about arguments, responses to arguments, interactions between arguments, etc., but is not likely to leave anyone upset after the debate. **This is particularly relevant, in my view, for students younger than college-age.**