Fidler,+James


 * __ I debated for four years at St. Vincent de Paul High School. I do not debate in college. I have not judged varsity policy before and have been out of the activity for about three years. Given these things, I expect to be pretty rusty and recommend that you take it easy with speed and jargon to be sure that I’m able to follow you as best as possible. __**


 * __ I do not have any significant familiarity with the topic, so make adequate effort to contextualize your statements for me. __**

I am currently a junior at UC Santa Cruz, studying creative writing (poetry) and feminist studies. If poetics and literature, or feminist theory, or both, happen to be in your argumentative interests, I’m open to and most likely well equipped to judge a debate with those kinds of content.


 * __ During my time debating in high school, the K was my emphasis and comfort zone. If this is also true for you, I’m probably your judge __** . I have pretty solid familiarity with a range of critical arguments, whether through debate, further theoretical education in my free time, or college. **__Whatever the argument,__** **__I’ll be happiest seeing it engaged strategically, but with care and a minimal amount of simplification or general misrepresentation of the source philosophy or theory__**. If you can do the thought justice, you’ll be in a better place in the round, and not just because I’ll be more satisfied with your presentation.


 * __ I had while debating, and have maintained since, a relatively extensive theoretical interest/emphasis in the work of Deleuze and Guattari __** . If that’s your thing, I am certainly interested in hearing it debated. That I’m familiar with it could be to your benefit or detriment, which has a lot to do with how conceptually substantive your application is versus how tricky you’re trying to be. Having both is good, but if it’s all the latter and none of the former, you might end up in trouble.

Simply put, my past debate experience and current intellectual interests mean I’ll be most qualified and comfortable adjudicating a K debate, but **__there are no restrictions whatsoever that I would impose on what you read__**. **__Debate has effectively no rules, only a handful of formal constraints and the maintenance or overturning of habitual conventions as the round determines.__** **__I don’t mind hearing policy rounds. Debate is for you, and my preferences regarding content are irrelevant__**. My personal history and experience are, however, important factors in the choices you make. The rest is up to you. Most of all, don’t force yourself into unfamiliar territory to accommodate what you think I want to hear. **__Do what you’re good at.__**

Argumentation that critiques, questions, transgresses, discusses, or otherwise experiments with the norms and practices of debate are welcome. **__I think discussions about debate itself are a worthwhile area of inquiry. Rather than defaulting to the topic, I think that I default to whatever is an at least somewhat assumed common argumentative ground when the debate starts__**. **__That could be the topic, or something else entirely.__** What it will be is, predictably, up to both teams and whatever arguments that play out. That said, if you plan to do anything particularly non-normative, know your enemy and justify it very specifically.


 * __ In other words: Do what you want, but argue well, explain coherently, be polite and respectful, and persuade me with both character and technical skill. Take no starting ground as a given. Take my level of judging experience into account. Contribute to everyone in the room learning something new and worthwhile. __**