Greenberg,+Jeffrey

Jeffrey Greenberg Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School '13 Vanderbilt University '17

Conflicts: Stoneman Douglas High School

Hi everyone! First off, a little bit about myself. I debated in LD for four years for Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, competing on local regional, and national circuits, and exclusively debating on the national circuit later on in my career with moderate success. I also attended NDF. I always had a competitive spirit, but I also would have never stopped debating if it wasn't a fun thing to do. Maybe those things will tell you about how I think about debate, but they probably won't, so without further ado:

Spreading is fine, as long as it's not a blurred incoherent mess. Clarity goes a long way, and I'll yell clear/slow/louder when I have to, although your speaker points will drop after the first time. I was never the best at flowing when I debated, and would look over people's shoulders if they were spreading super fast. Obviously I can't do that as a judge, but "if I haven't already yelled clear* I won't be afraid to call cards that I may not feel I have a full grasp of by the end of the round. On a side note, I'll also call contested cards (of course).
 * __Speed__**

__**Value/Value Criterion/Framework** **Debate**__ So, framework is important. Contention level offense is nothing without a framework to link it to. Whether that be your opponent's or your own is your strategic choice to decide in round. Winning the framework should never be a ballot in and of itself unless you tell me explicitly why and how a piece of offense in the framework functions as an independent reason to affirm or negate. That being said, your framework need not be a value/standard setup. Although I am definitely most comfortable with that, I'll vote off of any type of framework as long as you convince me that it's legitimate. Here are a few specifics: - Whether they be deont/util or something completely esoteric, nuanced and interesting framework debates will be sure to please me and get you high speaker points. -**Metaethics** are cool and I'm comfortable with their function and strategic importance. Make sure you are as well and this will be a solid choice. - **Aff Framework Choice** is a little sketchy and I won't be that happy, but you can feel free to run it and I'll evaluate it. My threshold is high though, especially because it stops those cool framework debates I was just talking about. - **Skepticism** is fine. It's a framework in and of itself, not a lack thereof, so justify it accordingly. - **A prioris and pre-framework arguments are fine.** I ran a bunch of them. I will vote on a conceded one, but you may lose speaks for not giving me an engaging debate. Also, hiding them will lose you points big time. Emphasize to me when you're reading them, and do what you have to do I guess....
 * -** I think **value debates** are nothing but arguments of increasingly vacuous and absurd justifications for what are often extremely similar normative claims. Sort these out quickly, or show me why, (REALLY why), the difference between morality and justice is enough to take offense away from your opponent.

Framework is a large, complicated issue, so feel free to ask specific questions when you have them. Something that will get you high speaks: Using popular philosophy or politics as a way of legitimately and technically justifying a framework. I read people like Ralph Waldo Emerson, Ayn Rand, George Santayana, and politicians far and wide. I think it's super fun to incorporate that stuff if it's done correctly. **Something interesting that I've been thinking about:** I think that on the framework level of a debate, the pre-fiat/post-fiat distinction of the debate round is not as clearly delineated as people think. I see no reason why, theoretically, framework cannot be cross applied to dictate what values we have outside of the round as well. I think it would, unless I am freed up by a reasonability interpretation read in round. This might be difficult to evaluate though, so I won't exercise this opinion unless it's convincingly and clearly articulated to me.

A lot of my circuit rounds, especially in early to mid out rounds at national tournaments, would involve theory, albeit never initiated by me. I therefore became a very competent defensive theory debater, which has influence strongly what I believe to be just practices. I view theory as a chess game overlayed onto the greater game of checkers that is debate. I do not prefer competing interpretations or reasonability framework for evaluating theory, so whoever justifies one or the other is what I'll switch to, and then you can debate it out. Absent any justification, I'll just default to competing interps because it's more common and easier to evaluate. Running theory just because you want to screw over your opponent (on the neg OR aff) is frowned upon, but I'll vote on it and just give you lower speaker points. A strategic or clever "I meet" argument will make me happy. I am completely supportive of RVIs paradigmatically as long as you justify them in round and win that debate. I'm also completely open to fairness/education/any other voter debate, as well as all of the commonly run theory preempts and spikes, even though I may not personally like all of them. I'm not really sure how kritiks of theory function, but try running one if you want and we'll see how it goes. Remember to extend theory that you want me to evaluate.
 * __Theory__**

I will not vote on disclosure theory or anything like it. Each debate round exists in a vacuum.

__**Kritiks**__ I do not have much experience at all running Ks, but I did debate against a few here and there when I debated, and while there were many that impressed me, many more left me wondering what strategic advantage they actually played. I also had an assistant coach and a teammate that loved them a whole lot, so I've read a bunch and I know how they are constructed. That being said, don't be discouraged to run them. They're really interesting to listen to, but just slow down on any literature that might be described as post-anything. Kritiks need links, impacts, and an alternative obviously, and extending at least parts of all of these sections is necessary for me to give you credence.

__**Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, and other policy stuff**__ I don't know what the norm is, but the way I see it, in LD you need a framework. Plans assume a util framework which is fine until the neg runs anything else. Justify a framework, then link your plan to it. Thus, a plan text in my eyes serves no more strategic purpose than to parametricize out of neg offense, but I think util impacts that are just super specific by themselves do the exact same thing. I do however give plans the right to fiat absent reasons read by your opponent. Counterplans that aren't run against plans seem weird to me, but I will evaluate them how I would anything else. Disads are cool too. A note on util debates here: WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH.

__**Micropolitical** **positions**__ I cannot lie. My threshold for these is super high. Micropolitics does not have the same inherent structure as theory, which means that instead of defaulting to competing interps (which seems impossible for this anyway), I default to reasonability. And, I think a lot of these positions are unreasonable. My personal opinions will influence my decisions on these, so be wary. I think they come before all substantive debate, and may operate on the same level as theory. I'm not really sure. They get me thinking though, and I guess that's what they're supposed to be about anyway.

__**Prep** **Time & Cross** **Examination**__ Cross ex was always my favorite part of debating, and is the most exciting part to me as an observer. I will award points for good cross ex, but don't think that acting arrogant or mean is the same as acting with cleverness, poise, and confidence. Well made jokes will get you high points. You must ask questions during cross ex, but you can use prep time to ask more questions or just work silently. Unless both debaters agree otherwise, prep time DOES NOT run when you're flashing cases.

And, above all, make sure to have fun and enjoy debate. I joined this activity because I loved it, and I operate under the ideal that if you aren't loving it, then you're in it for the wrong reasons. I'll help spur that along as best I can.

See you in round!

- Jeff Greenberg