Klarman,+Brian

=Judge Philosophy (2014-15)=
 * Conflicts:** Emory University and Pace Academy


 * Preferences**: Arguments are arguments (see: Argument). I have gone for or cut cards on a variety of arguments and will vote on pretty much anything. I would prefer in depth clash with a central tenant of the aff. If you want to do something else, do it well. Make sure to impact whatever you do.
 * Argument**: I prefer technical argumentation, but only if I can both understand and flow it. If I can't flow or understand claim-warrant-implication, you are yet to make an argument. If I can't explain what you have said, you are yet to make an argument. I will, at the end of the debate, vote on an argument. That means I should understand any claim-warrant-implication that is important.


 * Misc**: I know basically nothing about the topic. Don't use any abbreviations without first defining them.
 * Do not**: Clip cards, lie, be mean, use something out of context, or do anything else unethical. These will result in loss of speaker points or loss.

=Judge Philosophy (2013-14)=
 * Strikes:** Emory University and Pace Academy
 * Preferences:** Read anything. Don't change your strategy to debate in front of me. I have gone for process CPs, Ks, T/framework arguments, DAs, etc. I am technical, but I don't want to vote for the "g subpoint" of your condo block. I would prefer not to vote on "bad arguments" (see any debate norm ever), but I am willing to vote on it if it is well explained and impacted.


 * Speaker Points**: I believe in a range of points based on performance. 28 is the average. Below a 26.5 means you did something unethical, rude, or otherwise terrible. Not putting in effort will get you low speaks. 27-27.9 means you are putting in effort but could be better. Above 29 means you are good. Above 29.5 means you are one of the best I have ever seen (or debated).


 * Misc**: I have left past judge philosophies up, but I am really willing to listen to anything and would like your best debating rather than anything else.

=Judge Philosophy (2012-13)=
 * What Matters**: I am a senior debater for Pace Academy. Read what you want to read and I will listen to whatever. I would prefer to listen to something well explained then an argument that I like. I prefer to hear debates about a topical plan and if said plan is a good idea, but I would rather listen to a good Wilderson debate than a bad politics debate.


 * Aff Burden**: I think that the aff should prove the resolution is good in some way or prove that the negative is worse than the aff. If you can prove you should win (or the neg should lose) for some other reason (and win that is more important) then I will vote for that.
 * Neg Burden**: I think that the neg should prove that the aff (or part of the aff) is a bad idea (or worse than a mutually exclusive idea). If you can prove you should win (or the aff should lose) for some other reason (and win that is more important) then I will vote for that.


 * Theory, T****opicality, and Framework**: This should be a question of the best practice, competing interpretation, and competing standards. If you win that the other team has done something bad, I will default to rejecting said argument. If impacted correctly, it can be a reason to reject the team.


 * More questions**? [|Email me] or ask me before the round. I left my old judge philosophy up, but I think I am less ideological now. My current debate wiki is here

=Judge Philosophy (2011-12)=
 * 1st things 1st**: Everything is put in alphabetical order and has nothing to do with how often I want you to go for it. I don’t really care what you go for. I want the debate to be the aff reading their best stuff and the neg going for their neg strat. I will vote on arguments that I HATE a lot more often then people would think. If an argument is stupid, it should be easy to answer. This means I should not place my personal opinion where the debaters could have done work. I am a high school debater at pace academy. I have been a 2N and a 2A. I am currently a 2A and debate with Lauren Sukin. If you are wondering what type of arguments we read/go for our wiki is here. The only reason my notes should make you change your strat is if you are planning on cheating a lot or if you are a very flexible team. I just put up so many notes so you will know what I understand and how my brain works. I put preferences down because I realize that I may have biases but I am not auto-voting on anything below. I would really prefer you try to win and do so however it will work for you!


 * 1NC and 2AC note**: If I do not understand your argument, I have a low threshold for answers. A complete argument is a claim and a warrant. If there is no explanation of your argument it is not an argument.


 * Case**: The trick for the neg is to defend the status quo. It is pretty easy. If you are going to win a case debate in front of me (without a CP) you need to win that what is going on now is okay. It doesn’t have to be perfect but you at least need some defense to extinction coming now. I would love to see you challenge the internal link level of the aff but that can be hard to do.


 * CP’s**: Like them a lot and there is a good explanation about which ones are best in the theory section.


 * DA’s**: Love them! I have been told by other debaters that I care too much about impact uniqueness (and this will be explained more on the impact turn/case section). I think that uniqueness is underutilized and can control other parts of the DA. A good DA will outweigh and turn the case with a link someone about the aff and a logical internal link chain. I like to hear politics as well as any trade-off/spending DA but if you have a case specific DA I would love to hear it.


 * Dropped Arguments:** They are true. I believe a dropped no link is 100% defense to a DA (unless there is a really good framing issue in the block) and I think if an argument is dropped it should be extended shortly and impacted in the overall effect of the flow. For example, I am fine with a 1AR on a DA being: “They dropped (Insert No Link Arg) – means there is no causal relationship between the aff and the DA – even if they win all of their impacts and uniqueness default to the direction of the link.” That being said, "they said X so we say Y" is not needed and embedded clash is still answering an argument. Please do not say that someone has dropped an argument that they have not dropped.


 * Impact Turns**: Good strat. This is our teams A strat and I like a good impact turn debate. Uniqueness matters a lot. Is the world of one thing sustainable or not. How does the public feel about it/will we accept letting something happen? For example, heg good/bad debate: Is heg sustainable? Do we cling to heg? Do others backlash? The other part of the impact turn that needs to be worked out that often isn’t is how it turns the rest of case. For this example, heg turns soft power or heg means countries backlash at the plan could word as turns heg/short circuits solvency arguments and then an explanation about how it interacts with other advantages. Obviously good impact calc on impact turns is important!


 * K’s**: Specificity and explanation are key. I am not as well versed in K lit as some are but I believe that if it is well explained the K is an argument. The only K lit I know well is Nietzsche, Security, Foucault, Pos Peace, and a little Heidegger. I am open to hear new Ks though especially if they are well explained. I have been told I'm more K friendly then I like to think (most likely because I like to think I am bad for the K.) I often view framework as competing interpretations. I think K teams need to win impact framing to win the K; especially in the context of why the K impacts haven't yet happened or are happening now.


 * Spec Arguments:** If there is contextual evidence that proves that the aff should need to spec this can be an argument. For example, ORS spec can be okay if there is lots of evidence read on it. That being said, I do not particularly like these arguments because it is hard to create a true bright line for specification.


 * Theory**: NOTHING IN THIS SECTION IS SET IN STONE. I talk about theory a lot because I think debate is a fun activity so this section is long but it shouldn’t scare you. I will (unfortunately) listen to any CP and I have even voted on word PICs and process CPs so if that is your strat role with it. //That being said//, competing interpretations are the best way to evaluate debate. In general, I would like to look at two worlds for debate and decide which one is better (that means tricky interpretations may be helpful – for example for every condo world the neg gets, the aff gets X) . I think that debate should be reciprocal and that debate is a game. I think that if debate is not impossible, I will not want to reject the team on any argument (except maybe condo). I think specific application of theory is more useful than generic theory. For instance, I would rather hear that conditional PICs are bad because the 2AC offense can be used against the aff when the CP is kicked then just condo bad or just PICs bad. I think counter interpretations that restrict other limits of what the neg can do can help with debating theory for the same reason. For example, counter interpretation, we can get condo worlds as long as none of them result in the plan. That being said, //here is how I feel about general counterplan theory://
 * Advantage CPs**: Love them! They are fair, fun to hear, and if they are the only CPs you are reading they will probably give you some leeway on things like condo.
 * Condo**: Probably okay to have a few conditional worlds as long as they do not contradict each other. I have a much higher threshold for the neg if their worlds contradict thus mooting 2ac offense.
 * PICs/PIKs**: Plan minus is okay; plan plus is not. The basis of the 1AC is the plan text so I think textual competition is important as well as functional competition. A PIC should have something that looks like a solvency advocate and needs impact defense to the part of the aff you are PICing out of.
 * Process/Agent/Offsets**: If the aff does not specify, I often view this as plan plus, not plan minus. I do not think that it is a test of competition, that being said, if the neg wins theory, the neg can win the CP.
 * Solvency Advocate**: It would be preferable if there was a card supporting the CP could happen. That means if you read a PIC, you need a card that says the PIC can happen (plan specific).
 * Topical**: Probably fine. I do think that mixed with conditionality the aff can make an argument about why this skews 2ac strategy.

Along with that theory, //here is how I feel about most aff theory//:
 * Intrinsicness**: Probably not okay. If it is justified by a vague alt or condo it might be okay, but that is a debate to be had.
 * New Affs**: Not a VI; probably going to let the neg cheat more
 * Severance**: Defend the plan. You need to either say you are defending its function or its text in your interpretation for what you can kick out of.


 * Topicality**: Most of my theory and topicality thoughts are the same. I have not judged many T debates but I know a lot about the topic. Limits vs. Ground are always debates to be had and I can be persuaded that either comes first. I am very particular about the text of your violation and will likely call for it at the end of the debate as well as the plan text. Competing interpretations are probably a good thing but reasonability can be a winner. I think if you want to go for an argument like reasonability you need some threshold/interpretation of what is “reasonable.” I also think on the framing part of this debate I should know if the topic is harder for the aff or neg and how that should effect what type of topic I allow


 * Uniqueness:** I am not really sure what has happened but uniqueness seems to be less prevalent in debate. I think the easiest way to pick apart an argument is making uniqueness arguments on every level. For example, the politics DA could be non-unique because it won’t pass now OR because Obama doesn’t have PC now OR because there are fights now OR because unpopular policies have been passed OR the internal link could be non-unique because it hasn’t happened yet OR the impact could be non-unique for some reason. The team that best controls what the world of the status quo looks like has an advantage.


 * More questions**? [|Email me] or ask me before the round.