Add me to the chain, (thanexzeeh@gmail.com), or alternatively, use SpeechDrop.
General information:
1. Background:I debated for three or so years between Policy and Lincoln Douglas (LD) debate in high school, I debated for three years on the NFA circuit in LD as well as BP in college (UT 22'), and I do a little bit of coaching here and there (CCHS and Harker).
2. At a high level: I generally view myself as prioritizing technical concessions over truth. At the same time, for me to vote on an argument, the Toulmin model must be present. Claim, grounds, and warrant.
3. My position on "unconventional cases": Arguments are arguments ... performance, advocacy, non-traditional, soft left, etc. are all arguments. Questions such as "does policymaking outweigh individual resistance?" or "does activism come before ground?" are questions that are usually answered on a round-to-round basis.
4. Keep it nice: Spirt and heart, while necessary for debate, should never be conflated with being rude, mean, racist, sexist, or any other isms. If you are ahead, do not twist the knife, be supportive, and turn the round into a learning opportunity.
Procedurals:
1. Extending arguments: I will not extend a conceded argument for you if you do not extend and explain its importance in the latter part of the debate. I will presume you do not want that particular argument evaluated.
2. New arguments: I am willing to reject new arguments. I probably won't reject the debater but I will disregard the argument. I only will do so if a team brings up the specific argument that was new and why that new argument is bad/should be disregarded
3. When the timer goes off: I stop listening, flowing, and evaluating any argument made the moment the timer goes off.
4. Typing during cross-examination: If you see me typing during cross-examination I am probably tidying up my flow or typing out feedback.
Specific Arguments
1. Topicality, theory, and abuse: To win T or Theory you need to prove abuse. I won't vote for a "better vision of debate" because frankly, no one cares how I vote while me voting one way or another won't change communal norms. I also tend to defer to reasonability. Again, I tend to defer to reasonability. Quality of interpretations also matters (precision is probably good).
2. Kritiks: I enjoy the K. When judging the K, I view the debate through the lens of the framework. You have to have offensive reasons why your viewpoint and framing of the world come first. This includes going for policymaking good in answering the K, epistemology first in running the K, or anything in between. I also find I place more emphasis than some judges on "why my ballot matters", perhaps I've enjoyed the normativity K too much, but, I digress.
3. Permutations: They are a right the affirmative has as advocacy to check negative abuse. I defer to perms being an advocacy over a test of competition. In general, conditionality is good up to two advocacies, after that theory could start becoming a VI/cross applicable piece of the offense. Like T however, I need you to prove abuse.
4. DAs/CPs: I tend to avoid voting on a 1% risk of the disadvantage means a neg ballot arguments. I find that debaters generally lack the warrant development and explanation as to why their disadvantage matters and I won't do the work for them. If you're going for a disadvantage, timeframe and likelihood matter. Actor, consult, etc. CPs are fair game. Well-developed net-benefit debates are always a great strategy.
LD & PF - my take on speed:
1. LD Speed: The inclusivity of LD debate means that speed must be agreed upon between debaters. If you ignore the accessible standard of speed that your opponent has set up for you, I have no problem dropping you off of a ten-second speed theory shell.
2. PF Speed: PF calls for an accessible and public-based style of communication. This means eloquence, persuasion, and easy-to-flow argumentation will be rewarded far more than tech and speed. Of course, this does not mean discounting the role of warrants in your argumentation.