Author Topic: Philosophies  (Read 3603 times)


  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 87
« on: September 27, 2012, 12:37:39 PM »
I have had a difficult time entering some of this for a few persons and am not sure that any of it is showing up so I am just putting up the philosophies for the Clarion/hired judges that I don't think is coming thru on tabroom.

Peter Groh
Andrea Passantino
Dylan Kristufek
Ellen Stolarski
Tom Kennedy

Peter Groh
Debate Experience:
4 Years College Debate - Binghamton University
2009 NDT Qualifier
Last debated in college: 2 years ago
2nd year judging

I’m just going to leave this here: I HAVE NOT FOLLOWED THE TOPIC THIS YEAR. I HAVE NOT JUDGED ON THE TOPIC THIS YEAR. My familiarity with this topic is limited to bad cable news blurbs, some newspaper reports and a slew of posts on reddit.
I've been told I’m not the best at non-verbal feedback during speeches, so don't pay much attention if I look grumpy in the back of the room. That's just my default. If I start looking happy, that's good for someone.

Basics: Do I care if you read a plan? Nope.
Do I vote on framework? Absolutely.
Just develop some actual impacts on these points, tell me why I should adopt your framing, and we’re golden..

NB: To be honest, most/almost all "death of debate" args as a response to nontraditional approaches to debate aren't persuasive to me. This is not to say I don't care about the activity, or that I'm some nihilistic hippie, but merely that I remain unconvinced that change is bad. In addition, I am not automatically a policymaker, so don't expect me to blindly adopt your framework at the end of the round based on abstract impacts about why policy is sweet. I’ve shifted more to the right on this question in the last year, but I still find disturbing the degree to which some believe that the concept “because shively says so” belongs in an argument.

The K vs. "real debate" battle (read: clash judging. i guess.) --- I was a critical debater. If that statement worries you, that’s cool. I won’t take offense. That being said, in the last two years I’ve found not only will I listen gleefully to a sweet CP/DA strategy, I'll vote on it in a heartbeat. The same guidance goes to critical teams; just because I may have read similar stuff or enjoy poking fun at something doesn't mean you get to do crazy for crazy's sake. Make it important and I'll be persuaded.

More on K's: contextualize your alternatives. Am I okay with letting you get away with waiting until the block to frame the alt as a floating PiC? Sure. That's future pete's problem. Probably the other team's problem too. But by the end of the debate try to make sure you would feel comfortable that I could spit an explanation of the functionality of your alt back to you if you want me to vote for it.

Theory/T defaults --- while an in-depth theory debate can be great, you'll have to give me a reason to weigh this carefully (read: don't merely whip out subpoints hoping for a cheap shot win. Develop them. If it's totally dropped, you may get some leeway, but otherwise you're probably just wasting your breath.)

T is always a great argument procedurally. Run it. Run it well. Impact it. I slightly prefer competing interpretations analysis to reasonability, because it gives me a little less freedom to just make shit up about reasonability in the back of the room. Nobody wants that. That being said, I'm not entirely settled on this issue.

Process CP's & politics: run 'em. I don't think crafty politics da's as net benefits deserve criticism.

Evidentiary Questions --- I'll read evidence after the round (often a lot of it), just tell me why. Don't let it be an excuse not to play the game well and extract meaningful warrants, because I'll be more reluctant to give the evidence any meaningful weight.

Tech issues: I’m admittedly not sure how far the community has come in the last year on this question, so I’ll keep an open mind. I like paperless debate. But I like papered debate even better. This is especially the case in face of sporadic 'technical failures,' whether it be the absence of jump drives, highlighting issues, evidence transfer issues, whatever. The ability to turn 30 seconds of 2NR prep time into 10 minutes because you have to jump things to your opponents may not be intentional, but it is suspect. I don't take it personally --- my time isn't that precious, but the tournament's time is.

Speaker Points:
+ wit
+ well thought out cx (don’t ask one question too many.)

- overt aggression. you know what this is. you’re in college.
- completely incomprehensible evidence reading. don't be too concerned about this: i'll give warnings.
- people who throw their evidence on the floor after reading instead of holding it for their opponents or putting it aside.

Andrea Passantino
’m a former Binghamton debater ('05-'08) and stuck around for a year to coach ('08-'09), now I’m a 2nd year law student at Pitt Law.

** I haven’t researched, debated, or coached on this topic - and I've had ZERO rounds on this topic. So EXPLAIN -- tell me a story, and don't assume I have a working knowledge of current US Immigration policy. **

Overall: I have solid policy debate experience (5+ years or so now...), I’m fine with speed – but clarity is a necessity. I’m generally pretty flow-centric as far as decision-making goes. But it’s your debate so flowing (or not) is also up for debate – My default is to flow, but – if you urge me to abandon the flow, I’m down with doing that too.

Debate Styles: Again, it’s your round -- I’m cool with everything from your nuke war impacts to your critical discourse, to your puppet shows – just show me how to conceptualize the round, what the role of the ballot is, and how to vote. I believe debaters should run what they’re good at and what will make for the best debates – not change their paradigm given the preferences of the critic. That being said, I encourage debaters to “know their audience” – IE: if you have questions, ask me before the round ☺

What’s a “good” debate? Good clash, comparative warrant analysis, and impact calculus. I’ll probably only read your cards after the round if there was substantial disagreement on what the evidence says, or if there is appropriate strong analysis as to why my own particular reading of the card is necessary.

Topicality: I generally view T as a gateway issue, and will default to evaluating competing interpretations – unless you give me a good reason to adjudicate differently.

Theory: I won’t vote on blippy theory arguments without substantive explanation – even if it goes “dropped”. That being said, I jive with theory most when you can prove abuse on the flow.

Case Debate: Don't ignore it. A good case debate signals a bump in speaks. However, an overload on case defense is pretty boring – go for the “O”.

DA debate: Need good links, clear explanation of the story, and impact calculus. I’m cool with any of your impacts. (NB – To fly Politics and other economically/politically complicated scenarios in front of me there needs to be a good explanation of the “story” and comparative interaction of arguments – reading tons of cards on the uniqueness debate but failing to explain what your wall of cards mean for the debate will just confuse me)

CP debate: I’ll evaluate theory (consult, PiCs, fiat abuse, dispo/cond,etc) when clearly impacted. Competition is a must, permutations are tests of competition.

K debate: Need good links, the more specific the better. Well researched and run Kritiks are awesome, conversely, poorly researched generic K’s suck. So yeah, I studied Philosophy in grad school, but don’t assume I understand your more nuanced critical philosophy, spell it out! K theory:(same as CP theory above)

Performance/Lefty/”I don’t wanna be Labeled” Debate: Jawsome! I believe debaters should express their arguments in anyway they find most persuasive, but explain how the round should be adjudicated! Crappy performances will make me wish you were just speed-reading cards. I’m open to framework and theory, but again – it needs to interact specifically with the performance and shouldn’t just be generic “performance debate bad” blocks.

CX and Speaks: My default is to half listen to your CX, half read blogs that i'm addicted to. That being said – if you direct me to flow CX or make an arg for why CX is binding, I’ll pay more attention – probably, maybe. If you’re mean or make me uncomfortable, your speaker points will probably reflect this. However, if you can make me laugh or tool your opponents in a respectful way – you’ll probably be kicked up a notch.

RESPECT YOUR OPPONENTS AND YOUR PARTNER – be professional and contribute positively to the activity.

DON’T STEAL PREP TIME – it annoys me…

post script (3/10/10): I like to think I'm pretty forthcoming with the non-verbals -- If I cant understand/flow you... you'll know it by looking at my face/"keyboard cat"-like-cannot-flow-you-hand-motions.... pay attention to them, it's useless to buzz down a bunch of sub-points on your framework block that wont make it onto my flow...

post script #2 (3/16/11): Something you should know that will seriously rub me the wrong way: Sandbagging the 1AR with multiple new, off case arguments in the neg block -- while you *might* succeed in picking up my ballot, your speaks will certainly suffer, as will my overall opinion of your strategy choice.

Dylan Kristufek
Debated at Clarion for 3 years (novice to varsity).  Dylan has experience with both traditional and critical/performative styles of argument.  That said a traditional argument (read as policy, plans, disads) is probably the safer play.  Dylan has not been involved with the Clarion team this year regarding topic specifics.  Humor and kindness are warranted.  Make a clear argument and do the impact assessment and the round can be yours.

Ellen Stolarski
I debated for 3 years at Clarion.

I will default to viewing the round as a policymaker. This means I am asking if the plan is better than the status quo or a competitive policy alternative. I do enjoy hearing a good framework debate and am open toother ways of viewing the round. I’m okay with speed, but remember to be clear. I think that people should use their evidence and extract the necessary warrants.

Debate is a game, but I think that the education that one gains from it is even more important.

CP-I think that counterplans should be competitive. I am not a fan of agent counterplans.

DA- I am a big fan of case/DA debate. I think that case turns and link turns can be very effective.

T- Topicality is always a voter.

Theory- I think that theory debates are just like a CP/DA debate. I think that there should be a clear link and impact in the round. A clear, specific theoretical objection will do more for you than 3 generic arguments. I will vote on potential abuse, but it has to be clearly explained.

K- I am not experienced with the K. I ran a few K’s as adebater, but I think that a good kritik has to be explained well in order for it to function in a round. I think the alt should be written out and debaters should discuss how a world with the alt would look. I am not familiar with alot of familiar with kritik literature.

Performance/Non traditional debate-I think that you should be clear with framework and be willing to engage the other team.

C-X- Cross ex is binding. I think that debaters should be thoughtful and respectful during c-x. C-x is a good place to earn speakerpoints and make smart arguments.

Other: Remember to treat others with respect. Also remember to have fun! If you have any questions, feel free to ask.  

Tom Kennedy
Paradigm: I consider myself to be a policy judge. If you want me to vote for a kritik then you should have a policy alternative that I can vote for, or at least run it is a turn to the case. I think the most important aspect of debate is that both teams are able to compete on a level playing field.

Topicality: I think topicality is the most important issue in the round, and it will be a very hard sell for the affirmative to convince me that they win the round despite losing T (I don't think it will ever happen). That being said I think that the Neg needs to do a good deal of work on T, and the easiest way is obviously to show in round abuse. However, I will vote on T even with no abuse, if the Neg shows me good reasons why the AFF is not topical. Please realize that when blasting through T shells that it is not always possible to keep up at the same speed that you read your DAs.

Arguments: My favorite arguments to hear are DA's, however I am not necessarily a big fan of Politics DAs. I believe that the interpretation of fiat is open for debate, so that might be an easy way to get out of Politics DAs. However, if that argument is not brought up, or is answered sufficiently by the Neg, I will always evaluate Politics just like any other DA. I also love to hear case arguments. I think that my ideal round would be a round with a great case debate and a couple of DAs. Make sure that you evaluate why your DAs or case outweigh what the other team is saying. Too many teams make the mistake of just talking about their DA and not saying how that outweighs the case. Don't leave it up to my interpretation! If it is a close round and only one team tells me how they outweigh, that team is always going to win! I don't mind counterplans, in fact they can be very beneficial, just make sure that they're competitive. I am willing to listen to theory debates on counterplans as well.

Style: I am perfectly fine with speed, however people have a tendency to blow through T shells and theory shells (see above) and I think if they are short arguments that they might be better to slow down. I won't warn you about it, but if it's not on my flow then it was never said. Please don't be a jerk in the round. If you are trying to be funny, but it seems to me that you are being a jerk you will lose speaker points. I think there is way to little emphasis on Cross-ex and I love to see teams use cross-ex to set up arguments for the rest of the round.

Most importantly, always remember:

Rudeness is never a virtue.