Yu,+Ben


 * Short-Story: **

I debated for Whippany Park High School in New Jersey (2006-2010) and qualified to both the Tournament of Champions and Nationals (NFL); I now attend UChicago. I will maintain the stance that I am open to anything until I develop a more concrete paradigm as my judging experience increases: I won't impose personal ideologies or beliefs, and I'll most definitely not intervene or construct arguments for either debater. I think it’s unfair for a debater to be punished for an unknown personal fancy of mine, so I will never intervene because of a personal stance on the resolution. Similarly, I think that there is a place for any argument in LD. As long as if I see the logic behind your claims, I would feel perfectly comfortable voting off of it.

I'll always do my best to be attentive and focused on the round. If I didn't care, I honestly wouldn't have gone to that tournament (I have a choice, after all), so do your best!


 * Long-Story: **

While I never traveled extensively outside of the northeast, I have been to every single major tournament within the nearby region. As a debater, I ran philosophical positions as often as possible. I don’t subscribe to the camp that believes Zizek has no warrants: by that logic, nor does Nietzsche, who speaks heavily in analogies and metaphors. Granted, this doesn’t mean that I will give philosophical (continental, postmodern, whatever) positions more weight than stock arguments; I think that opting to use an obscure author is a double-edged sword. My understanding of how Derrida or Foucault relates to the resolution might be extremely different than what you believe it to be, so there is always the chance that I agree with your opponent that no, your case does not link to the resolution, or that yes, that application of the third Foucault card is not responsive. This doesn’t mean that I’m intervening – the fact of the matter is, it’s simply more difficult to explain philosophical arguments and winning the judge over in the short twenty-or-so minutes you have in a debate round. Also, it means that even if I accept your authors as legitimate, I won’t simply vote for an incorrect interpretation. I won’t pull the trigger because you simply said Zizek. It’s your obligation as a debater to take the extra time and read the literature and then correctly apply it.

As for speaker points, I will average 29 at national tournaments, unless you personally insult me or your opponent. I feel that speaker points are asked to encompass too many factors in the round, from speaking style to strategy. I think that debate is a forum to train such forensic skills and it is the orator’s job to cultivate his or her own style as they see fit. Reading over 7 words a second is hardly useful in any other activity in life, but at the same time, speaking slowly and eloquently simply won’t win you rounds. Both approaches are, honestly, completely legitimate. Giving you low speaker points while you are working to overcome a speech impediment or if you are trying to overcome your fear of public speaking seems hardly like a helpful confidence booster. Similarly, why would you ever give a new-Varsity debaters low speaker points? I understand that giving them 30s and telling them that they did “Superbly!” might only inflate their egos, but simply explaining their errors to them in the disclosure should suffice. Nuking their speaks will only drive them from the activity – graduating from JV or Novice is strenuous enough. Plus, being a speaks fairy will hopefully offset the number of speaks Nazis that undoubtedly exist within the judging pool. Either way, be creative (or humorous), and you’ll get a 30 more likely than not.

While I will accept any logically warranted claim, here are my stances on the different branches of argumentation within debate. Feel free to convince me otherwise, both in and out of rounds.


 * A Prioris **

There really isn’t a difference between an a priori and an offcase that “comes before the AC” or any other form of an independent voter. If you break it down, you can basically see that an apriori has internal weighing (just, rather than saying, this outweighs by X, Y, or Z, it says hey, I come before everything else. It's really the same idea). Given that theory is also a priori (It's a gateway issue to be resolved prior to evaluating substance?), I don’t see a problem with accepting a prioris as legitimate arguments. Feel free to run them – but given this acceptance, I am also open to theory as a response to the practice. In the end, I see debate as an infinitely open-ended game. The last, logical argument standing at the end of the round wins the debate (no matter what it is).


 * Arguments **

I seem to believe that terminal defense exists: it’s extremely tentative, but if a case is severed at its most basic level (say, the value…), then the defensive argument which is won can be viewed as terminal defense. This doesn’t mean that said debater cannot generate offense elsewhere – the argument on the value isn’t a floating piece of terminal defense – but in relation to the case itself, there is no risk of offense coming out of the case if such a defensive argument is won. I mean, the risk of offense would be ridiculously marginal...the defensive argument would always outweigh due to strength of link - on one hand, there is a won defensive argument, on the other, is a piece of offense that is challenged at the contention level, the criterion level, then the value level. Granted, this will probably never play a part in the round, but this little paragraph should highlight that I put a lot of weight on the different levels of debate and on how they interact with one another. Strength-of-link is a key issue in every round.

Dropped-arguments are not automatic game-winners. Dropped-arguments that are successfully compared/weighed with the other arguments in the round, however, are extremely damning. Similarly, conceded weighing doesn’t necessarily force me to pull the trigger because said weighing may interact incorrectly with the arguments that it references.


 * Cross-X **

I’ll listen; in fact, I might even record a thing or two that’s important. I enjoyed cross-examination more than any other portion of debate. Heck, I felt that I generated half of my offense in C-X some rounds. I feel that C-X is binding, since your response to your opponent is often times the only thing they have to go off of in terms of interpreting your advocacy. If they are asking you to clarify a portion of the case, chances are, it’s because they cannot understand it themselves.


 * Framework **

I don’t have a specific preference at all: while a value/criterion model is oftentimes the clearest approach, I am also fine with burdens or standards, and any other decision calculus. As long as if it is established, of course.


 * Theory **

I’m perfectly happy with a debater that runs theory in the traditional 4-part model, but I’m also willing to accept less-structured shells. While the 4-part model requires more time to read, an unstructured shell (usually they merge interpretation and violation) is susceptible to many logical indicts. Similarly, a debater can indict a shell for not having all 4-parts: this is all fine in my book. It’s just a debater’s obligation to establish the argument then win it.

While theory is a matter of competing interpretations, it can be made a matter of reasonability—all of this depends on the debaters. RVIs are also acceptable. Just win it.

Reading this over one time, I realized that I didn't explain my view on running a short theory position as a time-suck. I never did it, but that doesn't mean that a debater can't. I think that it is extremely simplistic to defeat such a shell: if there is marginal time investment put into the shell, then an equally short amount of effort is needed to beat the argument back. The only scenario where such a theory position would win the debater the round is if it is undercovered or dropped. Given that a debater comprehends what theory is, I cannot imagine that the better debater would actually allow for either thing to happen. And, if said debater does not have a grasp on theory, it is not their opponent's fault, nor did their opponent know.

Of course, this also means that I am going to be receptive to RVI's or appeals to time-skew should they be run in response to your cute-little-time-suck-theory-shell. The riskier the practice, the higher the potential reward, but at the same time, the higher the danger. _


 * Miscellaneous **

If a debater simply didn't understand an argument presented in round, then going to camp or talking to a judge (or their coach) should remedy such an issue from happening again. My point is simply that "don't vote for it because you don't understand it" should have very unique qualitative implications: I expect for there to be warrants to prove that no one can understand it. Otherwise, it probably is sensical, and I would be more than happy to explain how to handle any confusing arguments that were made in-round in the discussion we'll have post-round.

More likely than not, I will call for evidence after round, prior to a decision being made. As the judge, I believe it is imperative that I see the evidence behind the claims made in the debate: the thickest evidence comparison debates or claims over what a piece of evidence says can only be settled by a third party. Of course, if a debater simply accepts a piece of evidence (which is false) and concedes it for the round, I will not intervene. Similarly, cases must be called in order to evaluate specific burdens, theory shells (if textual), etc, since the nature of the warrants and violations may have a great impact on the decision made in round.

While I will do my best to make a decision as quickly as possible, I will absolutely not rush myself, so as to ensure that the proper decision was made. I think that I will take roughly 5 minutes to evaluate every single round – whether I find it to be clear or not – because the last thing I want to do is miss an argument and thus make the wrong decision. Please do not make any assumptions on the decision based off of how long it takes me to adjudicate.

If you read this before a tournament, or before a round, (heck, even after a tournament if you really want), you can contact me about your round/possibly having me as a judge. I'm open to conversing about anything, especially any concerns about my paradigm. Find me at benyu@uchicago.edu