Janda,+Sean

Background on me: My name is Sean Janda. I debated for La Salle from 2006-2010, qualifying to the TOC my senior year. I also debated at CFLs/NFLs/in Pennsylvania, so if you prefer to debate in a more traditional style, that's cool too. I graduated from Washington University in St. Louis in 2014 and am now a student at Stanford Law School.

Short version: Speed's fine. Theory's fine. Do whatever you want, as long as you give me a ballot story. Ask me any specific questions you have.

Long Version:

1. Truth-Testing vs. Comparing Worlds: Absent any in-round argumentation, I default to truth-testing, because I personally believe that comparing worlds simply has too many flaws to use as a fully coherent paradigm for evaluating the round. That said, in my view, the way I "truth-test" is generally by finding a moral framework to link to the evaluative term in the resolution and then judging links back to that. So, if you're somebody who loves to run util frameworks and lots of impact/policy-ish arguments, that's definitely cool (probably even preferred). On the other hand, if you happen to want to run deon or other more nuanced frameworks, that's cool too.

One caveat: I know that a lot of people who identify themselves as truth-testers might like things like a prioris and skepticism and other stuff like that. Seriously, though, I don't. (Note: I don't like these strategies when run in combination with substantive debate. If you plan on going for a 7 minute skepticism k, I'm much more fine with that.) I just feel that the proper way to combat those strategies is through theory, rather than through paradigm debates. What this means for you as a debater is a couple of things. First, if you plan on running those types of arguments, I'll vote on them without a link to something "undesirable." (e.g. if you run skepticism, that's enough for me to pull the trigger--you don't need to link it to genocide or some other utilitarian impact). Second, though, if you're hitting somebody running one of these strategies, please don't pull out your "comparing worlds good" block. Instead, run theory--I'll probably be more sympathetic to it. That said, I'm not saying I won't vote on "comparing worlds good." I'm only saying that it'll be easier for you to win the theory. **Note: I have no paradigmatic problem with voting on a prioris. Personally, I think they're unfair, but I also think debaters have gotten much, much better at defending them in the past two years. So, if you think you can defend them theoretically, then feel free to run them in front of me. I honestly won't dock your speaks or refuse to vote on them if you're winning the theory debate.**

2. Speed: Speed's great. If I had to pick, I'd definitely choose a fast (clear) debate over a slow debate--I just find it much more interesting. All of the usual caveats about slowing down on tags/authors/analytics and about being clear apply. That said, I'm not somebody who can honestly say that I've never heard a debater too fast for me to flow. I'll call clear once per speech if I can't understand you. After that, if I can't understand what you're saying, I'll just put my pen down and wait for you to notice.

3. Theory: Theory's awesome. I ran theory and went for it a lot. I can't really say whether I'll default to competing interps or reasonability, because I think that particular theory shells call for evaluation under a competing interps paradigm and some call for a reasonability interpretation. Generally, I think this question hinges on whether there is a clearly non-abusive alternative. So, for example, I feel like "multiple a prioris bad" theory should be evaluated using competing interps (since there's a very clearly non-abusive alternative to running multiple a prioris). On the other hand, I feel like "aff must defend only one country" theory should be evaluated using reasonability. That said, if you make arguments about how I should evaluate the theory, I will discard my defaults very quickly. So, long story short, don't make me decide which I should use and hope I pick the one you want--make arguments for whichever one you want me to use.

That said, I think offense on theory is very, very important. I do think you can win (under a reasonability paradigm) without offense on theory, but it's a lot harder to do so. Thus, you should be running counter-standards and/or turns on their standards (and with an explicit counter-interpretation). I definitely think fairness is a voter, so while you could win "fairness isn't a voter" arguments, it'll be hard to do so. (And, by this, I mean "don't look to fairness." Feel free to debate over rejecting the argument/the debater, or whether you've been unfair enough to lose, or what have you.) That said, I'll default to viewing theory as a reason to reject arguments rather than debaters, so you definitely have to invest substantial time (especially if you're neg) on why I should reject the aff based on theory. I'm more ambivalent on education as a voter. Also, if you run theory, please use interp/violation/standards/voter format. I won't reject it on face if you don't, but it will make it much harder for me to evaluate cleanly.

Also, I am biased against any theory that deals with things that happen outside of the round (e.g. disclosure theory, spectator theory, "your-coach-is-a-tool" theory). If you run any of these, I won't categorically refuse to vote on it, but I will be sympathetic to most responses and it will probably hurt your speaks. I am definitely more receptive than most judges are to RVIs. This is probably because I ran theory a lot as a debater and I fully understand (and exploited) its time-suck properties. That said, I think there are good arguments both ways on the RVI question, so don't disregard that particular debate on either side--to me, it's very much up in the air.

Finally (I think this is/was from Wade's paradigm, but I'm honestly too lazy to check), before you pull out your theory shell, ask yourself two questions. First, am I about to run theory on the most stock interpretation on the topic? Second, if there are two types of interps on this topic (A and B) and the aff chooses A will I run B good, and vice versa? If the answer to either of those questions is "yes," you should put the theory away. (Note: It was recently pointed out to me that, when I debated, I commonly ran theory on stock arguments and would also have both A good and B good theory shells, with the plan to run one of the two every neg round. That's because, as a debater, my job was to win. As a judge writing a paradigm, my job is to communicate to you what I do/don't like. So, while I will have no qualms voting off of either of the above theory scenarios, [or, for that matter, any other theory you happen to pull out] I just won't love them.) For the record, I happen to also be predisposed against 1AR theory bad theory (although I see its strategic merit) and "Aff must have a plan" theory.

4. "Policy arguments:" Although I don't love the term for them, go for it. Plans, CPs, disads, etc. are all fantastic. The more specific the CP/disad link, the better, although generics can be fine too. I won't go into all of my biases on theory questions regarding CPs, although, generally speaking I think that condo, word PICs, consult, and delay are probably bad. Dispo, actor, non-word PICs, and uniqueness are probably good. That said, none of those biases are even close to set in stone, so feel free to debate them out (side note: a specific solvency advocate probably moves most of the "bad" CPs into the "good" category).

5. Ks: Paradigmatically speaking, I have no predisposition against Ks. That said, the one K that I cut in high school was security, and I never read it in a round. I have never read Nietzsche, Zizek, Heidegger or anybody else that you feel like carding, and I have only a moderate grasp of their ideas (with the exception of some biopower-ish authors as well as various authors [Foucault, Laqueur, Halperin, and de Lorris as of Harvard] that deal with treatments of gender and sexuality). That said, if you can make whatever K you're running understandable, then go for it. I actually find a lot of "kritikal literature" pretty interesting (ESPECIALLY the gender/sexuality stuff), at least to the extent that I understand it, and I'd be very happy if you could intelligently and clearly run a k. So, basically, if you can explain it well, I have absolutely no problems voting for it.

6. Extensions: I'm probably more lenient than most judges on extensions. If an argument's dropped, you really just have to say "Extend X argument." I'm not going to force you to extend warrants that have been conceded. In addition, if, in answering responses to an argument, you adequately explain the warrants of the argument itself, then I'm not going to make you explain those warrants again. This is especially true in the 1AR, and more especially true when you're clearly pressed for time. Also, it's probably (definitely) helpful for you to take the time when you extend your arguments to relate those arguments to the rest of the debate. That is, make sure you explain what I'm supposed to do with your extension while you're extending (does it preclude something, outweigh something, link back to your standard, etc.).

7. Weighing: Weighing is probably the single thing that will make my job the easiest as a judge and your chances of winning the greatest. So, please do it. Remember, though, that weighing is only useful when it's comparative. That is, saying "I outweigh on magnitude because a lot of people die" is not good. Saying "I outweigh on magnitude because more people die in the aff world than in the neg world. [Insert warrant for why.]" is good. Also, make sure that you compare weighing. If the neg tells me that he outweighs on magnitude but the aff tells me that she outweighs on probability, it's like neither of you did any weighing at all. So, make sure you tell me why to prioritize your weighing.

8. Miscellaneous: a. Speaker points: I'm a pretty nice guy, I think. I haven't judged yet, so I can't tell you what my average is going to be, but it's probably going to be fairly high. Definitely, if I think you should clear (based on the way you debated in the round), you're getting at least a 28.5-29. Other than that, you'll get speaks for being strategic, being clear, being polite, being funny, etc. You'll lose them for being unstrategic, unclear, rude, etc. Basically, do whatever you want and do it well to get good speaks. Despite my personal preference for util/card throwdowns and theory debates, at Apple Valley, the only 30s/29.5s that I gave were to a kritikal aff, a nuanced contractualism aff, and a metaethical deontology-ish neg. So, point is, you don't have to debate the way I prefer to get good speaks; if you do whatever you're doing well, your speaks will be good.

b. Flex prep: Go for it, if the tournament rules allow. To be fair, if you don't use your cross-examination, that will probably make you look bad to me (won't affect my decision, but it will at least make me like you a bit less). Answering/asking questions in prep is perfectly cool. Please clarify with your opponent before the round if you think he/she might not want to do flex prep.

c. Arguments I dislike: A lot of this is covered above, but I figured it would be nice to consolidate this list to make it easier for you to figure out what not to run. Although I dislike these arguments, I will still vote on them if you win them on the flow. I just won't be happy about having to do it. Also, this list is probably not exhaustive, so if you plan on running something not on this list that you're not sure whether I'll like, you might want to ask before the round. -Necessary but insufficient burdens -1AR Theory Bad Theory -"Debates must have a plan" theory -Ought as logical consequence -Out-of-round-based theory (disclosure, spectator, etc.) -"Debaters must use consequentalism" theory -Ks without alts -Micropolitical stuff -Anything that requires a 1% chance of a link for you to win (e.g. taint of injustice) -Answering any argument by saying, "This is LD and in LD you have to..." -Not having a decision calculus in the AC -The democracy negative -Performances

9. Summary: Basically, do whatever you do best. I have no problems voting on anything you feel like running and in whatever style you feel like running it. Be nice. Have fun. I'll try as hard as possible to avoid intervening, and I'll disclose after the round. If you have any questions, e-mail me at jandas [at] stanford [dot] edu.