Knoedler,+Tim


 * __TL;DR version __**

I am a recent graduate of Trinity University. Speed, open cross-x, etc. are fine. I spent all of high school and college debating on their respective national circuits. All argument types are fine - whatever you want to read, I'm down.

I tried to make this philosophy not too long and as useful as possible - I think that I'm a pretty typical national circuit judge. I am equally comfortable judging a heg impact turn debate and a Heidegger debate. Below are areas where I think some level of specification might be useful.
 * __Slightly longer version __**

1) If you read a non-traditional aff (don’t defend the federal government or read poetry or what have you), I am a decent judge for you. You have to take the framework debate seriously, but I also think debates like these are valuable and educational (and interesting) 2) You probably shouldn’t go for condo bad if they only have one conditional advocacy – two or more and it’s fair game. Most arguments besides condo/dispo are almost certainly reasons to reject the argument 3) If the negative has a counter-plan that solves 100% of the case, but the affirmative wins that there is no risk of the net benefit or that the net benefit links sufficiently to the counter-plan, I vote affirmative - "There is always a risk" is not persuasive to me unless the negative actually wins said risk is higher than .1% - otherwise, I assume that the risk is no more than statistical background noise. (The same goes in the other direction, by the way - Affirmatives need to win that there is a moderate risk of their advantages, otherwise I am willing to vote negative on pure defense.)
 * __Aff Cheat Sheet __**

1) Not a fan of psychoanalysis – I’m a big proponent of scientific approaches to knowledge and I think psychoanalysis is largely very unscientific 2) That said, I like critiques – I think case-specific critiques are the most interesting arguments in debate. I’d rather watch a generic policy round than a generic critique round, though. 3) Dumb process CPs can easily lose to a "perm - do the CP" argument that is accompanied by 15 seconds of analysis - be careful.
 * __Neg Cheat Sheet __**

**__2014-2015 Topic Cheat Sheet__** I am totally new to this topic. Don't assume I know acronyms as well as you do. On topicality debates, technique will trump appeals like "but everybody runs this aff!"

1) __If you are paperless, your prep time ends when your jump drive leaves the laptop. __ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">2) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">You will lose if you clip cards, fabricate evidence, if you egregiously insult the other team (racism, sexism, etc.), if you are physically violent towards the other team or to me (feel free to beat up your partner). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">3) Cheap shots are rarely a reason to reject the team, __even if dropped.__ If you have to ask "is this argument a cheap shot," then the answer is probably yes. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">4) I have a degree in geology – I love debates about science and technology. However, it can create problems for you if you're going for scientifically untenable positions. I try to be as objective when judging as possible, but it is very difficult to win arguments like "global warming isn't real", because a) I'm really well-informed about these arguments, which probably colors my judgment, and b) unlike complicated international relations or economics issues, a lot of these arguments have been put to bed in the real world. Simply put, scientific issues are demonstrably true and can be resolved better by evidence than by argumentation. Try as hard as you can to be on the truth side of these debates, because tech won't make your evidence credible. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">5) I’m pretty nerdy. I like to hear nerdy jokes - the nerdier, the better. Math/Science/Video Game jokes encouraged, Jokes from TV shows/teh internet discouraged. EDITED FOR 2013/2014: No memes, please. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">6) I love judging debate. A lot. If I am grumpy, it is not because I’m judging, it is because I am tired. Please don’t make me grumpy to be judging by being unenthusiastic. If you don't want to be here, you'll make me not want to be here.
 * __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Misc. Cheat Sheet __**

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">__**How I resolve card clipping** **challenges**__ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Card clipping is obviously a serious accusation and not one that should be made lightly. If you wish to challenge, you need to <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">1) Give them a chance to throw out the card in cross-x (i.e. ask them what they read, ask if they are sure they want to say what they said) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">2) Have a recording. This can be a video camera, audio recording, etc. If you have a computer, it probably has an audio recorder. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">3) I will listen to your whole recording, but please be clear about what parts I should emphasize listening to. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">4) Be clear that once the challenge has been issued, the debate is __over.__ I will listen to the recording, resolve whether clipping has occurred, and vote for whoever is correct. If you accuse a team of clipping and they are not, we do not "pick up where we left off". You lose. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">5) The standard of card clipping is "were the words read that were claimed to be read."