Seitz,+Sam


 * I'm a senior 2A at Westminster and most of my leanings are fairly normal and "Westminster-ish"**


 * Main Things:**


 * 1st** – I am a huge proponent of tech over truth and will vote for even dumb arguments if they are well explained. Obviously I would prefer to not listen to Time Cube or E-Prime, but if that's your thing roll with it. That being said, dumb arguments are obviously easier to beat because they are DUMB.


 * 2nd** – I'm fairly new to judging so if you have any concerns or questions at the end of the round I would be happy to discuss them with you.


 * 3rd** – I think speakers points are separate from the RFD. If you lose on having terrible evidence but you are a fantastic speaker, I will happily grant you high speaks.


 * 4th** – You need to make warranted arguments. I understand fiat solves the link is a good time skew and I won't tank your speaks for it, but don't expect me to vote on a warrantless blip that is blown up in the 2ar.


 * 5th** – YOU MUST BE CLEAR. I will yell clear and won't ever stop flowing, but if I can't understand you I might misunderstand the argument and I might miss other arguments because I'm trying to process what you are saying. Also, I will be extremely sympathetic to the other team if they drop arguments that were utterly incomprehensible.


 * My Views on Certain Arguments**:


 * Obviously, as I explained above, these will change based on the debate but these are my personal opinions/default views.**


 * 1st** – Perms don't need a net-benefit. This argument has never made sense to me and I think presumption shifts aff in a world of the CP so they don't need to win offense on the perm.


 * 2nd** – All theory other than Condo is a reason to reject the argument – it takes good impact work for me to reject the team on cheating counterplans, and even more on things like severance perms or intrinsicness.


 * 3rd** – My personal biases on theory (just so you know how I feel)


 * Condo** – 2 is fine any more is probably not
 * Dispo** – silly and basically condo so idk…
 * PICs** – good if you have a solvency advocate but terrible if it's some super stupid PIC without lit and with a contrived net benefit
 * International Fiat** – Probably OK
 * 50 State Fiat** – Also OK
 * Consult, Commission, Recommend, etc.** – probably not ok and almost certainly not competitive (like actually)
 * Agent CPs ** – Not OK and probably not competitive unless CX proves otherwise
 * Other Stupid Things** – Aff
 * Politics Theory** – Neg


 * 4th** – I feel like offense–defense is probably inevitable, but I think you can win 0% risk. To be clear, I will vote aff on an infinitesimally small risk of the DA and a moderate risk of the case, but I won't vote neg when the 2nr is just case d and presumption.


 * 5th** – I won't kick the CP unless the 2nr tells me too. Also, the 2ar has the right to respond if the neg just asserts out of the blue that I can kick it in the 2nr.


 * Case** – I love in depth case debates and think that they are underutilized right now. I would much rather watch teams hash out the minutia of the plan instead of some stupid 7 off strategy. Also, you can win 0% risk of the advantage.


 * Disad** – Probably my favorite neg argument, I really like politics but agree that is very stupid. Again, feel that you can win 0% risk. Also, obviously I will reward more specific DA with better points b/c I think these are both better and more fun to watch.


 * Counterplans** – I like them.


 * Topicality** – I really enjoy T, and I think it is more valuable than just a time suck. However, I'm very persuaded by reasonability especially when it is obvious that the T violation is just contrived bullshit.


 * Kritiks** – Despite our usual neg strats and my Westminster background, I enjoy good K debates (especially IR Ks). I know more than you might think, but I wouldn't say I'm am well versed in all the different k lit. What this means is you need to take time to explain the K and I would really prefer if you could make it topic specific or at least contextualize it to the aff.


 * Performance/Race** – I'm probably not the best judge for you just because I am highly persuaded by framework. I'll still listen and vote on it, but I think tech is very important, and am incredibly annoyed by teams that just rant and overuse pathos while not answering any of the other team's arguments.


 * Paperless Stuff:**

I will stop prep when you say "stop prep," not when it leaves the computer. Also, I have had my share of computer issues in round. Don't freak out, I'll be lenient and we can figure out how to deal with whatever is going on with your computer. Stealing prep is obvious, and if I see you doing it after warning you there will be a problem.


 * Random:**


 * Conceded arguments don't necessarily win you the round.** You have to explain and impact them; you can't just say "They dropped X, bam instant win."


 * I think the 2ar gets some leeway with elaborating on arguments and impact calc,** but I will protect the 2nr on blatantly new arguments.


 * Cheating** will cause an instant loss and lowest possible speaks. So will falsely calling someone out.


 * Random** - If you call someone out on improperly using "begs the question," I will add .3 speaks to you and take .3 away from them.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Forman%2C+Saul
 * Lastly,** I agree almost 100% with Saul Forman's wiki, and frankly his is much better written and more detailed than what I have so....