O'Donnell,+Evan

Hi my name’s Evan. I did LD at Princeton High School for 4 years on the local and national circuits and I got to a bid round once, so take that how you will.


 * For UPenn 2017:** I haven't judged a round since last year so please start slower than normal

Short version: I’m open to anything that isn’t intolerant/hurtful of other debaters. Just make sure you’re clearly articulating your points, clearly extending your points. Slow down on tags and card names. Despite the fact that I would love to be able to judge every style of debate just as well, the fact of the matter is that I’m going to be a little better at understanding Ks, a little worse at complicated theory/tricks, and basically average on everything else. That being said, you can definitely win anything in front of me (with the previously mentioned exception of harmful positions) if you argue it well. Be confident! I believe in you.

Longer version:

Speed: Start slow and speed up. I’ll say clear/slow 3 times, and after that I’ll just try to do my best.

Speaks: I give speaks from 25-30. Speaks are based off of in-round strategy and articulation of concepts, not how well you can orate. An interesting position will also get you higher speaks. Saying something offensive will hurt your speaks severely.

Ks: I was a K debater, especially my junior and senior years so this is the kind of debate I know most about. I tended to go more for what people are calling ‘high-theory’ Ks now and I’ve especially got a soft spot for continental philosophy generally, and French post-structuralists and my boy Giorgio Agamben more specifically. Of course, I also ran and am open to other types of Ks, like those focusing on identity, capitalism, colonialism, something nontopical, etc. Just PLEASE have a well-defined role of the ballot, a clear alternative, and make sure you’re weighing. A well-executed, interesting K is one of the most interesting things debate has to offer in my opinion, but a poorly understood, badly run K is the saddest thing debate has to offer and will not make me happy.

Theory: Go for it, just make sure you’re explaining what’s going on to me. I default to competing interpretations and no RVIs. If you don't tell me what the implication of your argument is in the round, I'm not going to make one up for you, so please give me arguments regarding drop the arg/drop the debater/whatever else. Also, please have any interps you run written down. Exact wording is important, and if it becomes an issue in the round and you didn’t write it down, there’s no way for me to evaluate it.

Framework: I’m not super knowledgeable about analytic philosophy so if you’re running some super complex Kantian framework or whatever just make sure you’re explaining everything to me and slowing down on tags.

LARPing: Never did it much as a debater but, once again, as long as you’re explaining everything to me I’ll be fine. Solvency advocates are a nice thing to have and it would make me happy if you had them.

Miscellaneous: I won’t vote off anything that happened out-of-round. It’s not in my jurisdiction as a judge and I have no way of knowing whether it did or didn’t happen. You can try to convince me to in-round but I really doubt you’ll be able to.