Joe Allen – Oregon

Generic information: I do not wish to impose my views on the activity through my ballot. What I mean by this is that I think you certainly ought to debate in front of me in a fashion consistent with what you're best at--and allow me to adapt to you. I fundamentally believe that nearly all aspects of debate are negotiable, and certainly a multitude of different kinds of strategies can be fun to watch and fun to do. I believe those who insist on debate conforming to their view of the activity are narcissistic and don't get the point. I also think that the notion of the inevitability of intervention does not remove the responsibility to evaluate issues in a fair and honest fashion--in fact it strengthens this obligation. I will do my best to make decisions which are not informed by my predispositions but rather a serious evaluation of the issues as they were debated. My burden of striving for non-intervention will not prevent me from passing judgment. This ought not be confused. I will make a decision based on judgments I make (clearly) but I will not be dishonest about the objective flow of the debate in order to cater to my own debate ideals. I am a debate nihilist (you might say), I begin with the assumption that what you can do in debate is only limited by your imaginative capacity to justify your argumentative choices. There is no strategy that I didn't try as a debater--who would I be to tell you that you can't do the same? Specific information: Despite my strong belief that our predispositions should have no effect on the outcome of our judging, I must admit that I obviously do have predispositions about this activity. I've spent enough time doing it, and even more time thinking about it, that I am not a clean slate. I'll put my slate away for the sake of fair deliberation, but here's a glimpse of what my slate looks like. Topicality: Unless argued persuasively otherwise, I default to assuming that topicality is both a voting issue and an issue of competing interpretations. I went for topicality a fair amount in debate. I truly believe that affirmatives who make a good faith effort to support the topic (even if for a very abstract or nuanced reason) are the most strategic. Even some of the most strategic critical affirmatives I've ever seen affirmed the topic. I suppose a good general rule is that if you're not trying to be topical, you should have a good reason why. I have never heard a definition of reasonability in my entire life that made more sense to me than competing interpretations (doesn't mean I'm not open to the possibility). I believe that the specificity of the standards and how effectively they are compared (T debates are impact debates like everything else) is often the decider. Counterplans: I tend to assume that counterplans are a very useful strategy available to the negative. I am not predisposed against conditional counterplans, and frankly I'm also not predisposed against multiple conditional counterplans. Surprisingly perhaps, I also am not strongly against counterplans which don't compete textually (particularly if they are authentically within the scope of the topic). The reason I think textual competition is usually a good limit is precisely because most counterplans which textual competition limits out are those which detract from topic education. If yours doesn't and you can justify your counterplan you're fine. If you say there's a textually competitive version of the counterplan I will know if you're lying (just so you know). It's really all about what you can justify. The quality of your solvency evidence is generally a great indicator of how smart your counterplan is. The kritik: We shouldn't be afraid to have kritik debates because they serve as a way of making sure that our assumptions can be justified. That being said, our assumptions can be justified, and I appreciate people who do in fact engage critical teams and make an effort to defend the perspectives which inform their arguments. A few uphill battles critical debaters might find with me are that I often think critical framework arguments do not particularly limit the affirmative very much. For example, the reason it doesn't make sense to me to say that representational debating is object fiat or utopian fiat is that disads and cases are also representational. There is no part of debate that isn't already a performance, and there is no part of debate that isn't already representational. It's about the desirability of those representations. Another roadblock critical debaters might find with me is that I have no problem signing off on topicality or evaluating the framework debate against the kritik. I did this plenty against kritik teams, and I'm not opposed to framework if you cannot justify the way your kritik is framed. If they're responsible for their representations why aren't you? I don't like the fact that kritik debaters uniquely have to have a sheet of paper justifying the existence of their argument right out of the gates, but if you cannot win that your argument should exist I think you should find a different argument. I also am a sucker for sophisticated and clever permutation arguments. Perhaps this is why I think the best kritiks are topic specific and turn the case. Theory: I think theory serves a vital role in regulating debate trends, like a filter. Sometimes a strategy is a winning one precisely because it's not crafted in a fashion that is fair. Sometimes a strategy is antithetical to education to a degree that merits its total exclusion. Again, these questions are answered best through a framework of competing interpretations where sophisticated impact calculus happens at the level of the standards debate. If you can justify it, you can do it. Theory debates are one of the best tests of whether or not you can justify your given strategy. For this reason, I take it seriously and think it should be evaluated first. I will not evaluate it first only in the circumstance where you lose the priority debate (which sometimes happens). My default assumption is that fairness and education are both good, and keep the activity alive. This does not, however, remove the obligation to demonstrate why something is theoretically objectionable to a degree that merits the ballot. I also tend to fall further on the potential abuse side of the spectrum than the real abuse side. Just because you don't perform abuse (in the sense of how much of their strategy has in-round utility) does not automatically mean the way your strategy is positioned is suddenly educational or fair. Disads: A well argued disad can be a beautiful thing. If you can't outweigh the case, read a counterplan that pairs well with your disad. If you want, read two. You could also surprise me and debate the case effectively (I will appreciate this). I do not dislike politics disads, but those which do not have any real link specificity annoy me a bit. Sometimes the politics disad is the right choice, sometimes it's not. Depends on the topic. The greater the specificity and applicability the happier I'll be. I love a well crafted topic disad. If your disad authentically turns the case, then I'll probably be inclined to thinking it's a good disad. Be prepared to debate all levels of disad uniqueness (not just top level) including link uniqueness, internal link uniqueness, and impact uniqueness. Things that really annoy me: 1) Process disads. If your disad relies on the process of the plan passing, rather than the outcome of the plan, I will not like your disad. If you say things like "the plan will be horse-traded for x" or "the plan will move x off the docket" I will be utterly dissatisfied with your lazy and bankrupt disad. To be clear, it is the job of the aff to identify how absurd your disad is. I will not hesitate to vote for shitty process disads if the aff fails to correctly answer them, but it'll make me feel bad about myself and the state of debate. 2) Theory debates which begin in the PMR. Sometimes really egregious things happen in the block. In this case, I may very well vote for theory which begins in the PMR. Example: the negative splits the block. However, I am more often than not wildly uncomfortable with theory debates in which the negative has no opportunity to contest your argument. The best example I can think of here is that the MOC should take a question. My intuition is that you get the last word, and so you should have the upper hand in dealing with these situations without putting me in an awkward position. This is one of my least favorite debate arguments. 3) Spec arguments or T arguments which have no resolutional basis. If your spec argument has no basis in the topic, or requires the aff to be extra-topical in order to meet your interpretation, I will think it's a bad argument. E-spec is a good example of such an argument. This is especially egregious in instances in which T arguments have no basis in the topic since T is supposed to be explicitly premised on the language of the topic. 4) Floating pics. Alternatives should not include anything resembling the plan. They should especially not literally include the plan text. If they do, and you do not win the debate on perm: do the alternative with appropriate theory arguments about how nonsense it is for the alt to include the plan I will be pretty pissed. The negative should have to make alt solvency arguments in order to demonstrate why the alt solves the aff, and the aff should be entitled to argue that the aff is a disad to the alt. If the alternative does not enable this debate to occur, it's more than likely theoretically bankrupt. I would hope that the aff would identify this. 5) Incorrect permutation strategies. For every silly nonsense counterplan which shouldn't exist, there is a solid permutation text which makes such counterplan look pretty silly. I really appreciate it when the aff correctly identifies the appropriate permutation, and conversely, I really don't like it when the aff fails to problematize bad counterplans with the appropriate permutation. 6) Failure to offer impact comparison. Clearly I have no desire to intervene. It is up to you to ensure that the debate is resolvable in a way that doesn't require me to compare things myself. I will always decide debates based on what occurs in your own words. I will not put the pieces together for you. I will not assume your position to be a priority if you fail to demonstrate this for me. Impact calculus is the centerpiece of how you can accomplish this. 7) Failure to identify things which are theoretically bankrupt. What bothers me the most about asinine strategies is when I'm put in a position to have to endorse them with my ballot, and I absolutely will if you fail to allow me to do otherwise. It is your responsibility to filter out irresponsible debate trends with sound objections to them. Take your responsibility seriously so that I don't have to make decisions which I know endorse things which are not good for the activity. Summary observations: I suppose my views on the ideal strategy are almost always informed by the topic. The best K's turn the case and are topic specific, and the same can be said for the best disads. The best counterplans have very quality solvency evidence and a sensible net benefit.The best critical affs affirm the topic and discuss issues pertinent to the topic literature. There's always a good strategic option for a given topic, and it's up to you to find it. I will not be a hindrance to that process. Whatever you think is situationally best given the strengths of yourself and your opponent should be what you go with. I'll adapt to you. You'll probably debate better when you do what you're best at. Almost all debate is fun, it should be a question of what's the most situationally strategic option. One last thing: I am a very expressive judge. 9 times out of 10 you will know what I think of your argument. I will shake my head at you if you say something really absurd, and I will nod for arguments that I agree with. I can't really control this very well (I've tried). On very very rare occasions I will verbally declare an argument to be stupid during the debate. Do not take me too seriously. I vote for stupid arguments when I would be intervening otherwise, and not all smart arguments are round winners. If it's very difficult for you to deal with non-verbal reactions to your arguments or this is very distracting for you, don't pref me. I literally could not possibly be less interested where I end up on your pref sheet.


 

Alice Hoover – Lewis & Clark

TLDR; Be nice or your speaker points perish, a good pun gets you 30 speaks (no, puns do not counteract being mean). Do what you want; I’ll weigh the round how you tell me and all positions are pretty equal in my mind as long as they are probably. I’m more likely to vote on a probable conventional war scenario that kills 50 people than a nuke war scenario. Speed: I’m decent on speed, but don’t stress, I will clear or slow you if I can’t keep up. While I don’t mind if you go fast, don’t be a jerk to the other team, slow down at least a bit. Also, don’t abuse clears. Use them when needed and I’ll do my best to protect both teams. For example, if one team is all speed and the other is a fair bit slower, y’all should try and meet in the middle so we can have a good debate. DA’s/Plans/AD’s: Keep them organized and well explained and I’ll be happy. I don’t have a huge preference for the style; I’m just as likely to vote on a kritical advantage and I am to vote on a heg disad. My one qualm is, if you’re reading politics, make sure the link is clear and the specific scenario is explained well in your first speech. I dislike when I don’t know who the lynchpin of the politics scenario is until the member speech and dislike when the reason X politician will dislike something is “just cuz†. K’s: I like K’s but prefer them to be well explained. Don’t just throw out a name, explain the line of analysis. For K aff’s I prefer if you either are topical or just reject the topic; no point trying to shoehorn arguments about why you’re kinda upholding the res if you aren’t. For a neg K, make sure the links are solid and unique to whatever the aff team reads. Don’t just say, you use the USFG and so bleh!-give reasons that their plan is uniquely problematic. Theory/Fw: Condo is bad, that’s just the truth. I like theory and Framework, but I don’t like pointless theory. So if you read a theory on no neg fiat, it won’t have much weight for me. However, if the theory position seems like it does have some bearing in the debate, I’m willing to weigh it how y’all debate it. Framework can be a good way to answer the K and does not always have to be prison guarding. I prefer if the framework shell you read has some weighing comparison to the K framework. Speaker points: Simple rules, I will try to be very gracious in my speaker points, but if you are rude or mean to the other team or your partner, I won’t hesitate to give you 11 speaker points. A little bit of sas is fine and all, but the animosity in debate rounds usually gets out of hand and devolves into pettiness. Debate should be enjoyable, we’re all smart people and can win arguments without being buttheads about it. I also love puns, so if you make a pun, you almost guarantee yourself 30 speaker points (and no, being a jerk, then making puns does not make your speaker points better). If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

 

 

Sean McKean – Oregon

Quick in prep version: I am a first year out (take that as you will) debating for Oregon for 4 years. In general I am down with just about anything, however I would much rather hear a good disad than some only tag lines and a bad alternative kritik. Theory was my jam when I was debating, so if you want to read it go ahead, however, I’m not going to vote for you just because you read it, while my threshold is probably lower than most judges I like to pretend I’m not a hack. Longer (probably unnecessary) version General Overveiw: My ideal debate is a strategic topical aff v some CPs and a DA or a topic K. That being said, I tend to be down with anything you want to read in front of me, I believe that it is my job to adapt to you and the arguments you want to read not your job to adapt to me. I am not going to tell you what to or not to read in front of me or reject your arguments on face. I tend to prefer more technical debates where you explain to me how all of the relevant arguments interact at the end of the round over just extending them and making me try to figure it out myself at the end. I want to be able to write my RFD at the end of the round by sticking as much as possible to the flow without having to insert my own analysis, this means I want you to write my RFD for me, tell me why I should vote a particular way at the end of the round. Impact framing is a lost art, it’s not helpful to just inform me that both teams do, in fact, have impacts. I want to hear how I should evaluate those impacts against each other, ie. Do I care more about fairness or education on the theory flow, is timeframe or magnitude more important, can I even evaluate arguments rooted in some kind of epistemology? More specific stuff: Theory/ T: I read a lot of theory when I was debating so I am pretty much able to follow what is going on in complex theory debates, although I would prefer that you slow down a bit when spreading theory since it is more condensed and harder to flow. I evaluate theory just like any other argument, which means I am probably more likley to vote on it than most judges if you go for it correctly. In order to win theory in front of me you are going to need to impact it out and explain what it means for the round. (IE just because they dropped your Consult CP's are illegit argument doesn't mean you insta-win if you don't give me some reason why that theory argument results in a ballot, not just me dropping the CP). Framework: Framework was my go-to when debating the K aff. That doesn’t mean that you necessarily shouldn’t or can’t read a K aff in front of me, just be aware than I’m not going to be one of those judges that just ignores the argument for some vague political reason. K affs: I would prefer that if you are going to read an aff that isn’t topical that you have some good justification for doing so, I am not really interested in your “I read a cool book and here is my book report” project. Ks: I am down with the K, however there are some recent trends in the kritik that I feel need some addressing here. First, Marx was my bread and butter and I am fairly deep in that literature, but outside of that and maybe Heidegger you should not assume that I am incredibly well read in your lit base. That doesn’t mean that you can’t read your K in front of me, it just means that you are going to need to do some more explaining. Second, there has been a tendency of K’s becoming just a list of tag lines, that then get extended as arguments later in the debate. If your K sounds like this I am probably going to give the other team a lot more leeway in reading new arguments when your K finally becomes something in the block.

 

Tony Penders - Bellevue

I would describe myself as a policy maker; that was my background, and I certainly default to that reflexively, even now, but I am very happy to vote for critiques when possible and generally enjoy unique approaches to the activity. I debated for Gonzaga, I coached at Seattle and then for Bill Shanahan at Fort Hays State U. I have a deep background in debate but my lack of recent exposure to rounds means that while I am open-minded and will consider all forms of argument, you will be forced to adapt to the fact that if you rely on contemporary jargon and a lot of speed, you are likely to lose me. Explain things to me, and I am likely to figure it out. I used to be a good judge :-)

Some basics are pretty much all that I can help you with; I do not object to procedurals, have voted on varying forms of them.  I will weigh impacts, unless there is a reason not to; I allow the latitude to debaters to use this forum to advance whatever agenda they so choose.  I tend to think of the time constraints as being the only absolutes as they have to be upheld or the tournament falls into chaos.  Beyond that, have fun, be polite, and even nice to each other. 


 

Ben Soleim – Lewis & Clark

Did NPDA for two years at the collegiate level. Don’t mind speed, but it’s been a bit so if you don’t see me flowing then slow down. Good with both theory and policy debate. If you are running straight up, give me clear impacts and a clear frame in voters. Don’t trust me to make the decision you want, make it for me. If you win framework on the K, then I will hear it. Will vote on basically anything if you justify it. If you say something that is meant to denigrate another group of people, I will gladly drop you. So don’t do it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nadia Steck – Lewis & Clark

Nadia here, I am currently the Coach for Lewis and Clark’s debate team I just graduated from Concordia University Irvine where I debater for 2 years, before that I debated for Moorpark College for 3 years. I’m gonna give you a TL:DR for the sake of prep time/pre-round strategizing, I want my personal opinions to come into play as little as possible in the debate round. I want the debate to be about what the debaters tell me it should be about, be it the topic or something totally unrelated. I am fairly familiar with Kritiks and a decent amount of the literature behind them, but please do not take that as an excuse to be lazy and just expect me to backfill warrants or arguments for you. If you don’t say it, it doesn’t end up on my flow, and thus it doesn’t get evaluated. There aren’t really any arguments I won’t listen to, and I will give the best feedback I have the ability to give after each round. For out of round thinking or pre tournament pref sheets here are a few of the major things I think are important about my judging philosophy and history as a debater •I hate lazy debate; I spent a lot of time doing research and learning specific contextualized warrants for most of the arguments I read. It will benefit you and your speaks to be as specific as possible when it comes to your warrants. •I spent most of my last two years reading the K. I am most familiar with French Postmodernism and Queer theory, that being said I am willing and ready to listen to anything at least once. •I did read arguments tethered to my identity occasionally; that being said, I never read my personal story in debate, nor did I leverage my particular experience as an argument. If you want to do that, go ahead, but as a warning I do not need a lot to be persuaded by framework. This doesn’t mean I am discrediting your existence as a person, it means I believe debate is only a good space for advocacy if everyone has a form of access and not everyone is comfortable or ready to share their lived experiences in round and, as such, should not be punished for that. If you want to read your personal narrative anyway, I am more than happy to listen and give any feedback I am capable of giving. •As far as framework and theory arguments go, I am open to listening to any theory argument in round with the exception of Spec args, I honestly feel like a POI is enough of a check back for a spec arg. I have yet to meet a spec arg that was justified much beyond a time suck. If you’re In front of me, I give these arguments little credence so you should respond accordingly. •As far as the actual voting issue of theory, I by default assume they are all Apriori, as theory is a meta discussion about debate and therefore comes as a prior question to whatever K/CP/DA is being read. When it comes to evaluating the impacts of theory, please please please do not be lazy and just say that fairness and/or education is the voter without justification. These are nebulous terms that could mean a thousand things, if you want to make me really happy as a judge please read more specific voters with a solid justification for them. This way I have a more concrete idea of what you mean instead of me having to insert my own ideas about fairness or education into the debate space. •As far as policy debates go, I default net bens, and will tend to prefer probable impacts over big impacts. That being said, I am a sucker for a good nuke war or resource wars scenario. My favorite policy debates were always econ debates because of the technical nuance. •Go as fast as you want, just make sure if your opponent calls clear or slow you listen because if they read theory or a K because you didn’t slow down or speak more clearly I will most likely vote you down. •I am not a point fairy, I tend to hover in the 26-28 range, if you want to get a 30, either deliver a great performance or be able to make me laugh in round, I will reward good humor highly.


 

Colten Sullivent – Mt Hood

Though my background is principally in IPDA and I place a high value on communicative style, over time I have come to appreciate the structure and clarity of Parliamentary style debate. That said, there are a few things that are easily stated and understood about my judging philosophy.

 

Speed is not a rhetorical virtue. It serves only to confound those who would find the most value in clarity. It is to be avoided.

 

Decorum is paramount. Competitors must remain polite throughout the event lest they see their speaker points drop.

 

Procedural arguments made for their own sake are tedious. Topicality, critiques, and similar arguments must be well supported and reasoned.

 

Otherwise, standard expectations apply. Road mapping and signposting are appreciated. Arguments should be well impacted. Be polite and professional. And have fun. Debate should be an enjoyable experience!


 

Ashley Tippins – Western Washington

TL;DR: Do what you want, try and be funny, if you can’t be funny be savage. Feel free to shift in the MO, feel free to call out that shift in the PMR. Enough people think debate is a game so debate is probably just a game, play it how you like. Praise Yeezus = Get Saved (aka higher spkr pts)

Background: I competed in NPDA/NPTE style debate for four years (2010-13; 2015-16) at Western Washington University (I too have fought the good fight against the Oregon Marxism shell; if you can’t beat’em join’em I guess). This is my first year out, keep that mind when choosing what argument or strategy to go for in front of me. I am attempting to be as self-reflexive as possible after each round I judge so that my philosophy can be as accurate as possible but, I am still learning about myself as a critic. My recommendation is to do what you feel comfortable doing because I can at least promise I will always listen and value and weigh all arguments brought into the debate.

Identities: I identify as a queer of color, I’m biracial (aka cookies n’ cream or mocha Frappuccino -- the second one really emphasizes the basic white girl inherent to my ethnic condition). Also I grew up poor but also I have bougie (white ppl read: expensive) taste; I also watch Will Chamberlin’s live stream most of the time so I’m not ignorant to the way the other side thinks.

Overview: At the end of the day, good debate is good debate and as a judge I want to see good debate. Good debate can be slow, fast, flow-centric, performance, etc; I honestly don’t really care what you do in the round, strategically and argumentatively speaking, so long as you justify it. I am a firm believer that you will debate better if you are knowledgeable about the things you are debating and thus I only ask you to do what you want to do with the round, so we both have a good and educational time.

Theory: Absent a critical argument with an enumerated impact that would problematize the theory position, I have a pretty low threshold for voting on theory arguments. I don’t think the AFF should always have to be topical but, I think the negative always gets access to saying they should have been topical. If the AFF isn’t topical then there should be more of a justification than ‘I wanted to talk about rumble strips’; reciprocally, there should be a robust justification for the ethics and method of talking about the topic by the NEG, definitely more than just ‘we didn’t get to talk about this shit we prepped’. No one is doing a particularly good job weighing internal links to the impacts of the theory debate, but like everything else in debate, that’s probably the best way to win my ballot. Additionally, if you are going for a theory position in the MO, I think you can shift the emphasis and context of particular words or language in your interpretation in the block, the same way you would shift but you don’t get to shift your actual interpretation – what you say in your 1NC is what you are stuck with, you better MAKE IT WORK tim gunn style.

Framework: ALWAYS COMES FIRST IN MY DECISION – when I sit down to make my decision I first decide what the framework is for the round and if you have lost the framework then I will probably disregard majority of your arguments (assuming the other team understands the utility of framework). I love watching teams get framed out of the round and low key I love framework a lot a lot. After two competing frameworks are provided I would love to see the 2AC consolidate the two arguments instead of continuing to go back and forth between two different pieces of paper.

Disad/Counterplans: Probably my favorite type of debate tbh. Whatever you want to do in this realm of debate is fair game for me; I don’t have too many preconceived notions about the strategies you should deploy. Conditional, unconditional, dispositional – IDGAF. Good, well warranted and explained internal links are the Kanye of debate; they are everything I love in this world of debate and everything I aspire to be – please use them in front of me, it will make winning your DA or ADV that much easier in front of me.

Here’s what I do care about: KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. I spent most of my time in debate trying to learn as much about the world as possible; my least favorite part of debate was listening to asinine arguments that have no basis in reality and then having to pretend like they weren’t ridiculous. I will reward epic, sassy call outs of blatantly false arguments with speaker points; I will punish proprietors of bullshit non-factual arguments with speaker points.

Critiques: I spent the last year and half of my debate career running almost exclusively critiques – this says more about the team I was on than it does my proclivity for voting for these types of arguments. Bad debate is bad debate but bad critical debate can be especially terrible – the points I made about actually knowing what you are talking about go nearly double with critical arguments. The quickest way to get super low speaks with me is to say some ignorant ass shit. You should have a framework that prioritizes your argument and tells me how to vote, specific and plentiful links, impacts that turn the aff, a clear alternative, and a warranted solvency mechanism.

 “Identity Politics”, “Performance”, and “Projects”: Labels like these are pretty messed up and don’t encompass this type of debate but -hey- language has its flaws. I’m obviously ok with this type of debate but not necessarily inclined toward voting for most of the “projects” I see run. I have a pretty high standard for what I consider good debate under this category; you need a method, a change to the status quo, a solvency mechanism, and a clear framework for how to evaluate these types of arguments against normative types of debate arguments.

Things I will not enforce in the round but wish I could

·         Stop calling it wilderson when it probably isn’t

·         Stop running anti-blackness/queerness/etc. arguments unless you are those identities – you say some really dumb shit if you aren’t and you don’t even know you did it

·         Stop whining about not getting to read your arguments

·         Stop whining about having to read framework

·         Stop whining about having to answer framework

·         Stop whining – we are all so fucking privileged to even get to debate

·         Stop saying Marx to Anti-blackness in front of me – I mean do what you gotta do but I’m so sick of this debate tbh


 

Kinny Torre – Western Washington

Tl;dr Debate better than the other team and you should win. Run what you want and I will do my best to evaluate your arguments through the paradigm that you wish for me to adopt. The only caveat is that I won’t vote teams down on technicalities e.g. they say “would” instead of “should” in the plan text.

 

I did policy in high school and parli in college. I’m starting my fourth year of coaching policy and my first year coaching parli for WWU. Basically, I’m cool with most arguments. I’ve spent majority of my time as a debater as a K hack but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t run an Israeli Freakout DA against an Israeli ontology aff in front of me. Theory, Framework, “projects”, poetry, and tix are all fine in front of me. I find some of these debates to be boring but that shouldn’t prevent you from doing what you’re good at…though I’m thirsty for a clash of civilizations debate. The only thing that I have predetermined is that the individuals within the debate space should not be excluded due to oppressive structures. This doesn’t mean that debaters have to be overly cordial because I think that these standards get applied very differently depending upon one’s body but I do think that debaters should (in most instances) respect one another.  

 

In other words, I don’t think that affs HAVE to be topical, I don’t think conditionality is inherently bad…I’ll even evaluate a spec shell if you make me—but I humbly ask you to not make that the certain of the debate.

 

Things that would be helpful for me/ya’ll should know about me:

       Getting a copy of the aff and neg advocacy text(s)

       Repeating interpretations and perm texts twice

       I don’t need in round abuse to vote on T

       I’m not going to fill in the blanks for you just because I ran the K—if anything, it might mean that I hold ya’ll to a higher standard.