tjclarksonmaher@gmail.com

CHS 2020/UVA 2024

(By the Numbers)

As of January 2021, I vote neg 55.81% of the time and vote aff 44.19% of the time. I have sat 3/18 elims this season, 16.67% of the time. On average, I give out 28.9 speaker points (28.8 to the average affirmative, 28.9 the average negative).

I'm not saying you should card this and have judge-specific side-bias warrants, but that would be kinda funny. Fair warning though, they're probably not statistically significant.

1. Bio

Hi! I'm T.J. I lone-wolfed for a school called Chantilly in Northern VA. I am currently a physics major at the University of Virginia (Wahoowa!). I qualled to TOC my senior year, but did not attend because of COVID. I went to six tournaments total in my career and broke at the four I went to my senior year. Because my career was so short, I didn't get to meet a lot of people or make a lot of connections, so I know you've probably never heard of me. I promise I know enough about debate to (hopefully) render a competent decision.

2. General Debate Philosophy

I care about technical execution more than argument content. But part of good technical execution includes providing strong warrants for your arguments. I will do my best to be tabula rasa and ideologically neutral, but that doesn't mean I'll vote for an incoherent, unwarranted, blippy argument just because it was conceded and quickly extended.

That being said, I have no problem voting for things I personally do not think are true so long as they are well-supported in round. I'm probably a better judge than most for some of the more out-there positions in debate, because a lot of them actually do have deep literature bases and solid justifications.

I'll list some examples. Trivialism is derived using formula logic and Paul Kabay is a respectable academic with genuine credentials. The principle of explosion (or principle of Pseudo-Scotus) was enough of a legitimate mathematical problem that Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory was invented to avoid it. Skepticism (linguistic, external world, moral, and epistemological) is a real issue in philosophy and well-worth debating. BUT these kinds of debates are better if you do your research and either card the relevant articles or articulate the relevant arguments analytically instead of spamming a bunch of silly nonsense about made-up things like "tacit ballot conditionals."

3. Style Familiarity

As I've indicated above, explanation, strategy, and technical ability trump argument content. I like to thing I'll evaluate any argument or style if executed properly and won. Just do what you're best at. That said, in the interest of transparency, I've described the types of debate I encountered most often as a debater below. They shouldn't bias my decision, but they might influence my understanding of the content and my comfort level with the relevant jargon.

As a debater, I mostly read phil positions and went for theory a lot. I was a bit of a tricks debater, but as indicated in the above section I'd like tricks to be substantively warranted and not blippy nonsense. I also regularly read policy-style arguments, but usually just so I could defend util against the NC or policymaking good against the K, so I don't have a lot of experience with policy v. policy debates. I have no problem with Ks, but its worth noting that I went for one only once in my entire career (and that time it was cap against a non-T aff).

4. Decision Philosophy

Debate is a game. It's a game with a lot of potential educational value (depending on how you approach it), but it's a game nonetheless. At the end of the day, I have to submit a ballot and pick a winner. I don't want to do this arbitrarily, so I will vote on the flow and only on the flow.

However, this does not give you license to be an unethical person. There are three circumstances under which I will not deliver a decision based on the flow:

A] A competitor feels that their opponent has cheated (i.e., by clipping cards or miscutting evidence) and asks to stop the round. If this occurs, I will confirm that the competitor wishes to stake the round on the issue. If they wish to proceed, I will analyze the violation in question. If the accusation is correct, I will award the accuser the win and assign speaker points based on my own judgement of the magnitude of the violation. If it is incorrect, I will award the accused the win and award speaker points based on performance in the round up until that point.

B] I feel that a competitor has done something to make the round unsafe. In this case, I will stop the round, drop the offending debater, and award speaker points I judge to be proportional to the magnitude of the offense. For example, if you deliberately say a racial slur in round, I will drop you with the lowest possible speaks I can give you, report the incident to tab, and recommend that you be removed from the tournament.

C] A competitor feels that their opponent has done something to make the round unsafe that I have not already identified. If they point out something that I would ordinary stop the round for, but simply failed to notice or didn't hear, then I will proceed exactly as I would in B. Otherwise, I will confirm that the competitor wishes to stake the round on the issue. If they do, I will listen to their grievance, then allow the accused to either apologize or offer a defense. I will render a judgement based on the reasons given. I will either drop the accused and award speaker points based on the magnitude of the violation or drop the accuser and award speaker points based on performance in the round up until that point.

5. Miscellaneous Preferences

-- Clarity is preferable to speed. Obviously I don't care if you spread, but I do need to actually hear what your argument are. I have zero qualms about not voting on things I did not hear. I will call clear 3 times, but if its obvious you're not listening I'll give up and stop flowing.

-- I will reference the speech doc when flowing, but I still pay attention to what you're saying. I won't miss any extemped arguments that aren't in the doc, and I won't flow things that are in the doc. I'm hard of hearing and deaf in my left ear, so I like having visual reference. Because of this, it's in your self-interest to flash pre-written analytics. I won't require you to, but be aware that refusing trades off with my ability to understand you and therefore with RFD coherence.

-- I vote for the side winning offense to the highest layer linking to some framing mechanism. Do explicit analysis of what impact filter I should be using, otherwise I have to use my own intuition

-- Sequencing, preclusion, weighing, and clearly delineated interactions are the keys to resolvability; I want my RFD to be repeating back arguments you've made. Please do impact calc.

-- Extend arguments by content (as opposed to sub-point #). I have low threshold for extensions if an arg is conceded. If an argument is not extended I ignore it.

-- I try to default to paradigms assumed by both debaters. For example, if theory is read with no voters and the response is just a counter-interp, I assume fairness and education are voters.

-- No new 2NR or 2AR arguments. If you read RVIs bad in the 1NC and the 1AR concedes that, then the 2NR does not get to suddenly change strategy and go for RVIs good.

6. Arguments I Will Note Vote For

-- Arguments that police the out-of-round conduct of other debaters. Please do not drag me into your blood feuds and resolve your disputes like normal human beings, outside the confines of an activity where it my job to pick a winner and loser. (Disclosure shells and things like round reports are fine since theory is distinct from casting aspersions on someone's character)

-- Arguments that require me to evaluate the debate after the speech in which that argument was made, since any response technically generates a contradiction. No evaluating the debate after the 1AC.

-- Blippy independent voters that are not linked to some framing mechanism. I actually think Reps Ks/Word PICs can be interesting, the impact just needs to be linked to a coherent framework, preferably of a normative nature.

-- I will not vote for arguments about the safety of the debate space on the flow. If you genuinely think someone is doing something offensive, refer to sections B/C in the Decision Philosophy section. Otherwise don't make accusations you don't believe as a cheap way to get a ballot.

7. Speaks

I've adopted the following system and will try to stick to it regularly (adjusting for the tournament as best I can). Full disclosure, they're still fairly arbitrary since I'm human and not a robot.

≥29.5 -- Near flawless, would have absolutely destroyed me when I debated, making it to deep elims

29-29.4 -- Very good, will definitely break but might not make it deep into elims

28.5-28.9 -- Decent all around, some errors, will probably break or lose the bubble

28-28.4 -- Mediocre debate, not awful but still developing (don't take personally, I was a 28 for most of my career and I have no doubt you'll improve rapidly)

27.5-28 -- Some major technical errors and flaws in strategic vision

<27.5 -- Something bizarre happened (I once watched a debate where the 1N ROB was "vote for the debater who does a TikTok dance,” and the aff conceded after the neg did a TikTok dance; that gets something around a 26.5, just out of sheer confusion )