Marble,+Will

Updated Feb 2015

About me: I debated for four years at La Salle in Pennsylvania, graduating in 2011. I debated on both the local and national circuits, so I'm fine with whatever style you want to use. I'm currently studying at the University of Pennsylvania. I have coached at La Salle since I graduated.


 * Short version**: speed is fine, theory is fine, I'm a truth-tester but policy args are fine, kritiks are okay but explain them well, give me a good ballot story, don't be rude, and debate is to have fun. Ask me before the round about specific questions.

__ **General views on debate** __ My general philosophy on debate is that it is a game whose incentives are aligned to educate participants. I'm not strict in terms of presentation style. I'm fairly open to different argumentative styles and encourage you to try out new things, with the caveat that I must be able to understand it to vote on it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round or in between rounds.
 * Long version**:

__ **Speed** __ I'm fine with whatever speed you want to go. If you're not clear, I'll say clear twice; after that, I'll stop flowing if I can't understand you. Please slow down for tags, author names, and analytics (this goes for theory as well). I will not call for cards to figure out what you said.

__ **Framework/paradigm issues** __ I default to thinking of the resolution as a truth statement. However, I think it's perfectly possible for you to run your plan/disad/kritik/whatever as long as you set up a clear framework that links back to the truth of the resolution. I'm open to an affirmative running any topical advocacy as long as they couch the debate in terms of whether that advocacy would prove the resolution true (at least in that instance). For instance, if the resolution is "R: [class of policies X] ought to be used", I will listen to an aff that advocates using an individual policy that falls within X.

I will not presume any particular moral calculus to decide the round. If the standard is means-based, I definitely want an explicit standard. If it's ends-based, I would prefer a specific standard but something general like "utilitarianism" is acceptable. If you're going to run an ends-based standard, make sure it's not a "fake" standard. That is, make sure it doesn't arbitrarily exclude impacts. For instance, "preventing terrorism" is NOT a good standard if the justification is that terrorism kills a lot of people because that implicitly presumes a utilitarian moral calculus. (Update 2/2015: this type of standard has mostly been eradicated from debate. But be careful of similar types of arguments, such as "default to utilitarianism because it maximizes our ability to discuss/reflect on morality.")

Finally, I think a prioris/necessary but insufficient burdens/contingent standards are probably unfair. If you want to run any of these arguments, go ahead, but know that I'm predisposed against you on the theory debate. That said, I think almost all abuse caused by these arguments goes away if they're the only advocacy you run (e.g., 7 minute skepticism seems legitimate to me).

"Aff framework choice" (AFC) is a dumb argument. Proceed at your own risk.

__ **Theory** __ I'd prefer a shell structured in the traditional way (interp/violation/standards/voter), but I'll consider it as long as all those parts are there in some form. I default to competing interpretations as I think theory should be used to find the "best" rules for debate, but I could be persuaded otherwise. I'm more sympathetic toward fairness voters than education. Make sure you explain the role of theory in the round—I'll assume that theory is a reason to reject the argument unless you win an argument that explicitly says I should drop the debater.

Responding to theory, you should have a counterinterp and offensive reasons to prefer it. If you win reasonability, it's possible to win theory without offense, but it'll be much easier to run counter-standards or turn the original standards. I'm sympathetic to RVI's if they're well-developed ESPECIALLY if the theory is run against one of the most stock interps on the topic.

Stuff I don't want to hear (some of these may no longer be relevant): - Theory that you can run every round (e.g., aff must run a plan/aff can't run a plan), unless there is flagrant abuse. - Textuality as a standard because I think it begs the question. - I don't think you'll be able to win that fairness isn't a voter if you have a semi-competent opponent. - "1AR theory bad" - "Must use consequentialism" theory". - Theory saying you must disclose - aff framework choice - "This is LD, and X isn't allowed in LD"

__ **Kritiks** __ I'll be willing to listen to kritiks, but I am not well read in critical philosophy, so please go more slowly, make your explanations clear, and don't assume that I know exactly what the terms you're using mean. I won't be happy if I can't understand it in your first speech, but then it become crystal clear at the end of the 2NR. But if you can do a good job making a complicated concept clear, you will be rewarded. If you want me to evaluate the round through some non-traditional framework (performance, etc), please be VERY clear what the role of the ballot is and give good justifications for it.

__ **Extensions** __ In general, I'll hold the aff to a lower standard for extensions. If the argument's completely dropped, extending the tagline and a one-sentence warrant is enough. Unless it's completely dropped, the negative should always extend every part of the argument. If you want me to vote on an argument, you absolutely MUST tell me how it links to the standard and interacts with other args, even if it's dropped.

Extension quality separates decent debaters from great debaters.

__ **Rebuttals** __ Write the ballot for me. Tell me what the standard is, what arguments link back to it for you, and why they outweigh any links that your opponent has. I don't care how you structure your rebuttal as long as you make it clear what you want me to vote on. Give me a ballot story. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE weigh the arguments. I appreciate slower-than-usual round overviews with specific references to the flow at the beginning of final rebuttals.

__ **Speaker points** __ I probably average around a 27.5. I mostly use speaker points to reward good strategy, but you won't earn a 30 without being a very good speaker with coherent rebuttals.

Being rude or running up the score (so to speak) on an opponent who is clearly outmatched will not help you.