Donnelly,+Liam

This philosophy is organized in order of importance. (exception: this sentence).

13-14 season: I am a first year debater at the university of puget sound and debated 4 years in HS (making it to ndca elims my senior year)

3 things that are not negotiable: - i flow, and my flow rules you - tech+truth=strategy, but tech is always more important to me - claim+warrant+impact=argument

I've underlined the parts of the rest of the philosophy that you should read, and everything else is hypotheticals and irrelevant leanings for people over-thinking prefs (and nerds) Top: 1. Win an arg, any arg, and a reason it wins you the debate and you will win the debate. I don't understand judges that say that arguments shouldn't be allowed in debate, or that they have a higher threshold for certain arguments--if you can't explain why a bad argument is bad, then me doing that work for you corrupts the educational value of this activity. I love that this activity is set by the debaters, and not by a judge, and will abide by that in making a decision. I think that debate is characterized by competing principles of logic. That is, i think that the reasoning behind my decision should be based in "truth" given the micro logic as determined by the "tech" of the debate. 2. I will flow you and I will flow you well. This is not negotiable. I will use my flow to make the decision and evidence doesn't matter to much to me. Often ev questions are important, depending on what arg it is, but I always start by evaluating ways that the arguments were framed by the debaters, the warrants that were extended by debaters, and the comparisons that were made in the round. I will flow as much of the evidence as I can understand, too, which is a reason why sometimes going slow and being clear is important. 3. I have to understand something to vote on it. I have to understand why it is true, I have to understand why it means anything to me. The threshold of "understanding" is kind of arbitrary, but blippyness should be avoided. Essentially, you need to have a warrant for your argument, and I probably have a higher threshold for warrants than most judges do. 4. The weight of a complete argument is determined by the weight of the engagement of that argument. Argumentation is, first and foremost, a game of engagement, and viewing debates through a lense not of the quality of an argument itself but by the quality of the response to that argument is the only objective way for me to look at an argument. 5. Impact stuff, and weigh those impacts. This is important on both the micro and macro level. 6. I will only use evidence in my decision under two circumstances: (1) there is evidence comparison done by both teams on the same issue or (2) how an arg fits into the debate is not discussed, which means i need to find the truthful way that the argument fits into the debate (for example, if a solvency deficit to the aff is never impacted, i'll probably read through the 1AC to decide which advantages it takes out). 7. I keep a good check against new arguments in the 1ar, 2nr and 2ar. 8. Dropped args are true but only in the way they were originally presented. This is explained a little bit more below in some hypotheticals. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">9. I'm a big fan of the latin america topic. I think that T debates, specific K debates, and most case and CP debates seem to be well grounded in interesting and high-quality literature, and it will always benefit you to engage that literature and show you have a lot of knowledge of it.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Instead of talking about my leanings in debate, i think that it's more appropriate to talk about common ways I end up evaluating different debates that may differ from other judges: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">- CP theory debates: a lot of the time, I think theory debates are won by the impacts of different standards, and the team that is spending the most time impacting those standards will probably win the debate. It doesn't really matter, but i'm pretty aff-leaning on virtually every theoretical question. If your CP doesn't use the usfg, I don't think it's theoretically legitimate, and if it's not both textually and functionally competitive, i'm likely to think perm do the cp is legit. You still have to win it, though. Condo is probably bad if it's multiple worlds, and reject the argument not the team is really dumb against all theory. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">- CP's in general: not enough teams impact solvency arguments, on both sides. If your solvency deficit doesn't have an impact, i'm unlikely to vote on it. Hypothetical: 1nc reads the states CP. 2ac says states are too bureaucratic. 2nc extends CP, doesn't answer "states too bureaucratic." 1ar and 2ar extend that the states are too bureaucratic, but never explain why states being too bureaucratic inhibits the CP's ability to solve. In this scenario I wouldn't look to the solvency deficit at all because i'm unsure how it matters. To carry the hypothetical, if the 1ar and 2ar extend the argument and give a reason why states being too bureaucratic implicates the CP's solvency, the 2nr gets to answer that reason, but not the premise that states are too bureaucratic (see #8 above). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">- I'm a fine judge for K's on both sides, but specificity is a must (for both sides). Shenanigans will probably win a lot of neg rounds in front of me, so root cause, floating pik's, etc are all things you should answer. Framing the debate is a must. As a rhetoric major, I am a fan of rhetoric-based K's run well, and abhor bad explanations of why a word is problematic or why rhetoric matters, as well as bad explanations of butler, taboo args, offensive args on these K's, etc. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">- Framework debates usually have too much offense and not enough defense and comparisons of offense. If you want to win on framework, you should play some defense against the other team's claims, and do impact calc. I am pretty good for both sides of the framework debate, and judge the debate much like any other debate, as a comparison for reasons why a particular model of debate should be "chosen." Judge choice is really dumb, and I have yet to hear a real reason why it's a good model of debate. Oftentimes, substantive and theoretical answers to theory aren't given the interaction they need to have in the debate. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">- DA's: You need to explain the interactions between different argument. This is often true in the case of "da turns case" arguments, where it often goes unspoken as to how one "turns case" argument is offensive, whether UQ needs to be won to win it offensively, whether is can function as link D, what internal links it actually takes out, and whether you have to win the link to the DA for it to interact (or if you win that the status quo has X happening and X turns the case, that means that the status quo solves the aff). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">- I don't reject "not intrinsic" args on face like some judges do. It's probably true that DA's like politics and trade-off are not questions of whether or not the plan is good--ie not intrinsic to plan action. Not enough neg teams challenge the premise that a DA has to be intrinsic, though. If you win an impact and a link, i'll reject the DA. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">- Case debates: It's goes without saying, but they're good. In a lot of debates, the 2ac and 1ar often don't spend nearly enough time on each argument. A lot of the time that doesn't matter because not enough neg's catch this and go for case d, but in rounds where they do, I am usually better for them simply because it never seems like the aff fleshes out a lot of their aff. After listening to most 2ac's and 1ar's, i generally am left with the conception that at least one of the neg's arguments was poorly answered to the extent that, if the neg spends a little time explaining it, they will probably win it. tldr, don't do embedded clash on case if you can't do it right. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">- T: If you don't know what reasonability actually means, please don't go for it. I'm a fine judge for T debates, so long as your standards are impacted well and compared. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">- Not enough teams talk about what fiat means. Too many teams assert durable fiat as the being a good way to view the debate, when it's really not a very real world or literature-based argument. This doesn't mean i'm a "rollback" hack, but i don't think that asserting "durable fiat solves that" to answer a solvency deficit is a good place to be in front of me if the other team is giving theoretical reasons why durable fiat is a bad model of debate.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Speaks: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Speaker Points are determined by a) how easy you are to flow/how organized you are b) how well you seem to know your ev/smarts c) CX's and my interest in them <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Some random ways to improve your speaks: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">- Clarity. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">- Being funny. I'm an occasional speaker at a seattle-area comedy club, so good humor is something I appreciate, and even if what you're saying isn't funny, as long as it's not mean, i'll probably appreciate the effort. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">- Don't be a dick, especially in CX. You will get lower speaks. If I think that I would have not been able to function as a debater if I were in someone's position during CX, you will get lower points. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">- Don't use offensive language--if you do, you'll get a 20. This isn't about the stuff your cards say. If you say racist, homophobic, ableist, etc things using your own words, you will get a 20. This includes the rded word, which i have a particular peeve about. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">- Try to, in general, err on the side of truth. Reading good arguments, reading less args rather than more, etc are all useful. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">- Gutsy strategies are always rewarded-this includes giving a 1 minutes 2ar when they drop theory, putting 1 argument (the right one argument) on a DA with a horrible internal link chain, etc. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">- I have become increasingly tired of people thinking J.Cole is a real rap artist. Anyone willing to take a JCole pledge, promising to listen to non-J.Cole at tournaments through the end of the season, will receive an additional third of a speaker point regardless of their approach to debate. This incentive is here to encourage students who listen to J.Cole to try listening to non-J.Cole in a setting where it is very easy and realisable. Not only will this have the effect of decreasing the amount of horrible-music-playing our community actively funds but it will also show students what it means to listen to real music in a community that, while improving, is clearly still hostile to the suggestion that it has horid musical taste. This will not only have an effect in encouraging increasingly better musical options at debate tournaments but will also show that it is indeed possible to abstain from listening to what sounds like animals being slowly killed. (Note: this does not include the song //Work Out//)

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">liampirate(at)gmail(dot)com if you have questions. I like to write things about debate, talk about debate, etc, so feel free to hmu