Hi! I’m Tejretics. I was this site’s Voting Moderator back in 2018, and have voted on a bunch of debates both here and on DDO. I’m a college student studying math and economics.
I’m hoping to vote on a few (4-5) high quality (no forfeits) debates on here in the next two weeks. DM me or reply to this forum post if you’d like a vote on a debate! In case you’d like to get a feel for me as a judge, check out my RFDs on these debates:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2736-it-is-in-the-best-interest-of-humanity-that-we-attempt-to-transition-toward-veganism (RFD)
I’ve got a fair bit of experience judging formal/competitive debate, primarily in parli formats. Some notes on me as a judge:
- I tend to be quicker to discount bare assertions than many other judges on here. Some people think that’s a good application of tabula rasa judging. Others don’t.
- I don’t default to utilitarianism when weighing arguments. I’m personally pretty consequentialist, but what ethical framework to use is up for debate, and I won’t insert my ethics into it.
- I think good debating involves having clear, logical warrants for arguments and having empirical evidence. The two aren’t substitutes for each other: they’re complements. Lots of judges will vote on a statistic. I might vote on a well-defended study, but I’m unlikely to vote on a single statistic.
- I will read your sources. If you cite a source and claim it says something it doesn’t, I’ll treat it as a bare assertion. However, I won’t credit you for anything you don’t say in the debate (e.g. if your source makes a different argument, or if your study has something in-built which preempts your opponent’s challenge to the study, I won’t credit it unless you bring that up to defend the source).
- I’m less likely than the median judge to vote on a pre-fiat argument, such as a K. I’m willing to do it, but you probably have to meet a higher bar with me (at least unconsciously) than most other judges. If you’d like to win me over as a judge on a balanced topic, the best way to do so is to make clearly topical arguments.
- In normative resolutions, I’ll default to assuming the BOP is shared unless stated otherwise in the rules or discussed in the debate. In fact-based resolutions, I’ll assume the BOP is on the side making the fact claim unless stated otherwise in the rules or discussed in the debate. However, I treat the burden of proof as up for debate: if you convince me the BOP is on one side, I’ll vote that way. I’ll note that debaters on DDO/DART tend to overrate the importance of who has the BOP – the BOP will only ever decide a debate if it’s basically a draw. In general, it’s a good idea to have offense regardless of who the BOP is on – because if you have no offense whatsoever, any standing piece of offense from the other side is enough for you to lose even if they have the burden of proof.
- I will flow the debate, and read the entire thing (not just skim).
- I will not assume a debate takes place in the U.S. unless it’s in the resolution, the rules, or (implicitly or explicitly) agreed upon by the debaters.
If you’re fine with this, hit me up with a request to vote on something!
