Judge Philosophies
Ben Dodds - Oregon
<p>Name: Ben Dodds</p> <p>School: Oregon</p> <p>Section 1: General Information</p> <p>Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear. Judges who write philosophies that are not clear will be asked to rewrite them. Judges who do not rewrite them may be fined or not allowed to judge/cover teams at the NPTE.</p> <p><strong>2014 NPTE 100% rewrite -- read me even if you know me</strong></p> <p>I think honesty in philosophies is one of the best ways to advance the activiy. Let me be perfectly clear what I am trying to accomplish by writing this: I want to be the top preferred judge at every tournament that I go to. I have judged every NPTE since 2009, and attended each since 2006. Seriously, I want to judge all the debates, all the types of debaters, and I want to judge seniors one last time before they go save the earth. I enjoy nothing more than seeing people at nationals when they are at the top of their game. I will stay in the pool until the tournament ends, Oregon debaters left in or not. That is a promise that may be relevant to you filling out your form, I'll stay till the end like a hired judge. While, there are people that I don’t think I am an ideal ordinal #1 for, I work really hard to make sure that I get better at whatever flaws are the reason for that, so give me a shot to be your #1. I will proceed to explain why I think I am a good judge in most all debates, and why you may want to consider me for your ordinal #1. The exact question: what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you –</p> <p>I did policy debate for the majority of my career. I ended with a few years of parli at Oregon. I think flowing is a very important judging job that I try very hard at. I will use my flow as the official scorebook. I think letting the debaters use their arguments to win is important, so I try very hard to keep my own thoughts out of the debate. However, where there are thoughts that I think are better served by the debaters knowing them, I will let them know them. In my opinion, the number one reason I should be your number one judge is that you will know how I feel about your arguments far earlier than other judges will let on. I will try my absolute hardest to make sure I have communicated to you what I am thinking about your arguments as you make them. I will use verbal and non verbal communication to get this information communicated.</p> <p>This season I have:</p> <p> Asked for things to be repeated, asked for acronyms to be broken down, asked for things to be written, asked for people to be clearer, asked for people to be louder, asked for people to have more distinct tags, given people obvious signs to move on or told them to move on, and used other obvious nonverbal to verbal communication like: laughter and smiles, head shaking, exaggerated nodding and knocking, and even flat out telling folks that “I don’t get this, explain it better”. Do not be astonished if I ask you a question like that mid speech. I do all of this because I love you all and love good debates. I want to you be in my head with me the whole debate. I don’t think it is valuable for you to invest 25 min in something that I can’t vote on because I couldn’t hear. Similarly, I don’t want anyone spinning their wheels for 20 min when I got it in two. So, I really want to be your top judge, and should be because you will not have a question about where I am at during a debate, but if you would rather debate in blissful ignorance, I’m not your person.</p> <p>Also, there are things that I will not pretend to know about the world. I took the classes I took. Learned whatever I learned, I remember whatever I remember, but not more than that. There are issues that you, as undergraduates, know more about than I do. If there is a confused look on my face or I seem to asking for more explanation a lot, you have hit on something that I don’t understand. You should not just read this argument to me, it should be clear to you that you have to teach it to me. These two things are not the same. Your ability to know the difference is the greatest skill of all. Reading the audience and dialing your message to their knowledge base. If you have not educated me well enough on your magic fission technology, don’t get mad at me for voting on the argument that it won’t work. Still sound like magic to me, that’s on you. Any judge not willing to admit that there are things that they do not know about the world is lying to themselves, and to you. Strike them, pref me, and teach me your argument.</p> <p>I flow things in columns. I prefer to flow from the top of one page to the bottom of it. I'll be on the laptop, so '4 pages or 1 page' is up to you.</p> <p>Section 2: Specific Inquiries </p> <p>Please describe your approach to the following.</p> <p>1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?</p> <p>27-30</p> <p>I have given 10-20 30s in competitive debates of consequence in my career. Most of them are at NPDA/NPTE. Every year there are one or two people spitting pure fire that weekend, so no, I am not the "never seen perfect" type. Debate is subjective, while there might not have been a perfect speech yet; I have seen people debate without a flaw that was relevant to the debate many times. If that is you: 30. Beyond that, I will say that reward good choices higher than pretty choices. I’d rather watch you explain the double turn for 3 min and sit than explain it for two and then go for your DA for two. I don’t like contradicting arguments being advanced in rebuttals, unless there is some explicit reason for it. I won’t floor people at 27 or lower unless they are repugnant, and as articulated above, you’ll get to know from me verbally before I let you just bury yourself in bad. It is very unlikely that you will get poor speaker points from me, because I will let you know what you are doing that I like mid debate. I am like the bowling bumpers of non-verbal communication. You should be able to score pretty well here.</p> <p>2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?</p> <p>Anyone can do whatever they want. I think this is the right forum for debating about things with claims, warrants, and impacts. I am not scared of arguments based on the titles or format that they are delivered in. No on can make any argument without a claim, warrant and impact. If you have those three things, I don not care what you title it, how you structure it, or really anything more about it. You do you. As I stated above, I don’t like hearing contradictory arguments advanced in rebuttals, as by that time, I prefer to hear one strategy that is consistent being advanced, but I will hold out for a well-explained reason that contradictions are ok. Not my favorite, but certainly a winnable argument, just like all arguments are and should be. If you claim that contradictions are ok, and have a warrant and impact, you have made an argument. If you win the debate over that argument, you will win that argument. If you win an argument, I will filter the debate through that won point.</p> <p>3. Performance based arguments…</p> <p>Do whatever you want. I think I would be a good judge to try new things with. I have voted for all manor of performance debate as it has come into parli. I have seen parli evolve from the K being a fringe argument to performance being acceptable. I understand the theory that is in play in this debate as well. I am down to vote for either side of every issue on this discussion I am your judge for a new performance that Ks debate, but you’d better be ready to answer debate is good, because I am your judge for that argument too. I reject the notion that the argument framework: Ks cheat, or the argument framework: fiat is bad, are all that different. Just two sides of a coin, I am totally into watching a debate about those two things against each other. I’ll also entertain Ks vs performances, performance affs vs. performance negs, or whatever other arbitrary dichotomy you have to make between schools of thought. They are all just claims, warrants and impacts to me.</p> <p>4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?</p> <p>I require a full shell to vote on T. The neg needs to prove they have an interp that should be preferred, that the aff does not meet that, and that I should vote on T. I will default to that interp until there is a counter interp and/or an argument that says that I should not evaluate interps against one another (reasonability). I will default that T is a voting issue until the aff convinces me otherwise. However, no, I do not require “in round abuse”, because that is arbitrary. Competing interpretations debate resolves this entirely, if that is how T is evaluated, then the interp is good or bad in theory, not practice, ergo, in-round abuse is irrelevant. If the aff wins reasonability, and has an interpretation of their own, that is usually a good enough out. Now, don’t get confused, the reasoning for arguments about in round vs out of round have a place, its just in the reasonability debate, not just drifting in the ether of T is not a voter. Competing interps might be bad because they don’t force the judge to evaluate in round abuse over potential abuse. See, just a claim, warrant, and impact, placed somewhere relevant. I think case lists make good topicality standards. That encapsulates your ground and limits claims well. This works for the AFF and NEG.</p> <p>5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?</p> <p>This question is silly. You all determine all of these things for me. Do I have opinions on these issue, yes, and I will list them here, but they are hardly relevant to the debate, because theory is not a hard issue for me to just listen to you debate about and vote on. This is totally up to you in the debate, I promise I have voted on the exact opposite of everything I am about to say about how I feel about theory.</p> <p>PICS – Arbitrary distinction. Can’t be good or bad if it is actually impossible to define. This argument usually boils down to complaints like you should not get that CP, or you should not get that many CPs, both are ok arguments to me, just not likely a reason why PICs are good or bad. There is likely another, better theory argument that your claim, warrant, and impact would fit under more intuitively. Perhaps the problem is that the CP is only a minor repair (CP - treaty without one penny)? Perhaps the problem is that the CP is competing through an artificial net benefit that only exists because of the CP (CP - aff in 3 days)?</p> <p>All arguments are conditional unless otherwise specified. While the neg should state this, and I could vote on the claim (with good warrant and impact :P); "vote AFF, they did not specify the status". Or better maybe, "err AFF on condo bad, they didn’t even specify."</p> <p>This form does not ask my opinion on the actual statuses of CPs, but you are getting them anyway. I don’t believe that conditional advocacies are bad. This is the status I think is best: an advocacy that is competitive should have to be advanced. If there is a perm, the NEG should be able to concede it to make their CP go away. A non-intrinsic, non-severance perm to an advocacy is 100% the same argument as no link. If the AFF and NEG advocacies can exist together without repercussion, the NEG advocacy is testing no part of the aff, and is irrelevant. However, this is just my opinion, you do whatever you want. I have, and will vote on condo bad. If it has a claim, warrant, impact, it’s a winnable argument. If the impact to the voter is reject the team, so be it.</p> <p>A legitimate permutation has all of the aff and part or all of the neg advocacy. I will not insert my opinion on that meaning that the function or text of the CP in your debate, again, that is for you. My opinion is that text comp is an arbitrary tool made up to limit otherwise unfair feeling CPs that debaters have not been able to defeat with the appropriate theory arguments. Text comp and PICS bad are actually basically the exact same argument. They both arbitrarily eliminate a bunch of CPs to try to rid debate of a few.<em> Artificial net benefits are bad</em> is the argument that both of these poorly conceived arguments are trying to get at. <strong><em>You should not get the save a penny CP</em></strong>, but that is not a reason that we must use text comp or that we must reject CPs that include the plan in them. That is a reason to reject save a penny CPs, they are just hard to define. There is the rub on all theory, interpret the rules to restrict the exact set of argument that you intend to.</p> <p>6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)</p> <p>Yes.</p> <p>7. In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?</p> <p>This question is just sad. It should read, if the debaters you are watching fail to debate, how will you choose? Well, here goes. I will order things: some Ks, some theory, other Ks, some AFFs, other theory, DAs and other AFFs. Don’t do this to me. Either make it clear that you all think the debate should be ordered the same, or debate about the order of these thoughts. If you let me choose, you have not completed the debate, and the decision will be based on something arbitrary, like me ordering issues on my own.</p> <p>8. How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?</p> <p>I won’t. I also don’t think the things listed are as abstract and concrete as the question leads on, nor are they necessarily diametrically opposed. In any case, this question, as phrased, is another example of something you should not do to me. Either, make it clear that you all think the debate should be ordered the same, or debate about the order of these thoughts. If you let me choose, you have not completed the debate, and the decision will be based on something arbitrary, like me ordering issues on my own. I think both of the things listed in the question, death and value of life, are important. I could be compelled to separate them based on number of people affected. I could be compelled to separate them on the time the impact occurs. I could be compelled to separate them based on the likelihood of each occurring. I could be compelled that one of these impacts is reversible while the other is not. I could be compelled that one affects other policy choices while one does not. If there was none of that for me to sort it, I would say death is bad, because that is what I think. If you let the debate get down to what I think, rather than something you said, you failed.</p>
Beth Hewes - CSI
n/a
Chris Pierini - UWash
<p> </p> <p>Background: I debated 4 years in high school, 2 years LD, 2 years Cross X. I debated Parli at UW for 2 years. I'm now head coach at UW and been coaching the team for 5 years. This will be my 15th year involved with debate.</p> <p>In General:</p> <p>· My flow is strict and speed is fine.</p> <p>· I default “net benefits” if no other framework is engaged.</p> <p>· Read any textual advocacy twice (PMC plan, perm, K alt, CP, T violation, ect) or have your partner give me and your opponents a copy of the text during your speech. The last thing I want to judge is a theoretical argument predicated off of text I don’t have word for word.</p> <p>· I’m willing to do a “gut check” on absurd arguments to protect the academic value of the activity. If Gov makes an argument that a country does not exist to no link a relations DA that argument is not going to fly. I want to vote for intelligent and strategic arguments.</p> <p>· Terminal defense: Sigh…..at some point I guess defense can win you the argument/round. A “we meet” on T or 0 solvency because of a plan flaw, come to mind. 0 risk of a link is just hard to prove. Defense combined with offense is a much easier way to win my ballot. In fact I think defense is undervalued in most debates.</p> <p>· If you and the other team have agreed to specific terms before the round like say “we will provide a written copy of CP text if they provide a written copy of plan text”. I must know about it before hand, those ethical debates are nearly impossible resolve.</p> <p>· I think debate is fun. Don’t put me in a position where it’s not fun.</p> <p> · POO's: Call them but I'll probably just take them "under consideration".</p> <p> · POI’s: You should probably answer a question or two. If a team can not engage your argument because it’s unclear (usually I’m thinking of a T violation or wtf the K alt means) and you refuse to answer a question….I'm probably going to give a lot a weight to any theory coming your way.</p> <p> · If you have a question please ask, I’m more than happy to answer it. chris.pierini@gmail.com</p> <p>Section 2: Specific Inquiries </p> <p>1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?</p> <p>· 26-29.5 standard range.</p> <p>· Points are awarded on the basis of strategic decisions made in round.</p> <p>· I will only go outside of this range if you are horrifically rude to me, your partner, or your opponents.</p> <p>2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?</p> <p>· The “level” at which the K operates is dependent on the framework.</p> <p>· Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? That’s for the debaters to engage or not.</p> <p>· Kritiks are like any other argument, they can be run poorly and they can be run well.</p> <p>· If you start throwing out hyper specific buzz words (especially in your alt text) OR a melding of 16 different authors it would be prudent to define/terms and explain your argument more than going for laundry list links and impacts.</p> <p>3. Performance based arguments…</p> <p>· I will evaluate every argument made in round. Isn’t all debate a type of performance?</p> <p>· I will vote for performance based arguments…if you win the performance should win you the ballot.</p> <p> </p> <p>4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?</p> <p>· My threshold for pulling the trigger on a theoretical argument, I would not consider high or low. However, you must have all of the right components to warrant the trigger being pulled. Winning your interp and standards without winning a voting issue pretty much means I’m not voting for the argument.</p> <p>· Make sure you’re going for and impacting to the correct voting issues. You should probably have reasons why education/ fairness/ abuse/ jurisdiction/whatever is an impact-able argument.</p> <p>· I don’t require competing interpretations to vote for T but it’s probably helpful.</p> <p>· I don’t require in-round abuse but it’s probably helpful.</p> <p> </p> <p>5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?</p> <p>· CP’s they are an argument.</p> <p>· I have zero bias for CP theory. What arguments are run is purely a question of strategy.</p> <p>· I think solvency isn’t necessarily binary. You can solve better or worse in a lot of instances. This means CP vs Case solvency is really important for weighing impacts.</p> <p> </p> <p>6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)</p> <p>· Absolutely</p> <p> </p> <p>7. In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?</p> <p>· Theory (either throw out the argument or reject the team) then I do straight net benefits: K or/and CP or SQ impacts vs Case impacts….in general.</p> <p>· If your losing a K framework without articulating how your K operates in the Gov framework I’m probably going to reject the argument as it no longer functions in a decision making calculus.</p> <p>· If you have specific scenarios, I’ll do my best to answer them but with the variety of how arguments interact I can’t reasonably explain every permutation possible.</p> <p> </p> <p>8. How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?</p> <p>· Without argument interaction, PMs and LOs will be punished in speaker points</p> <p>· I have absolutely voted for positions like DeDev which went for value to life outweighing the nuclear war deaths and voted against when the warrants were not present.</p> <p>· If things are so diametrically opposed with ZERO argument interaction then my gut tells me I would default Gov as the Opp hasn’t presented a compelling argument to reject the Gov case. This has NEVER happened to me. Someone makes an argument which demonstrates impact interaction which I will evaluate because at this point judge intervention has become necessary to resolve the debate. I will intervene using arguments on the flow not my own personal bias. Basically, the better warranted or more logical argument will win out.</p> <p>· I give a lot of weight to specific scenarios vs generic impacts for reasons of probability.</p>
Dave Kosloski - Clark CC
Emily Santee - UWash
John Jablonski - Clark CC
Kerrie Hughes - CCC
n/a
Kristin Hunt - SPU
n/a
Nick Robinson - Willamette
n/a
Nik Vaughn - Clark CC
Patrick Lairson - CCC
n/a
Sara Seyller - Clark CC
<p>I have enjoyed participating in the collegiate debate community since 2007. I have participated in, coached, and judged NPDA, IPDA, and BP debate. I think any form of debate is both fun and educational!! While I enjoy sharp, pointed styles I am averse to disrespectful treatment of competitors, and find that it detracts from the whole of the debate. Overall, in each form of debate I am well versed in rules and expectations and hold firm to them. They are there for a reason and ought to be respected. This does not mean I lack flexibility, but it does mean that outright violations will be noted in nowhere else but in speaker point awards.</p> <p>In many ways I consider myself a hybrid, I am a flow judge with a speed govern of just short of ludicrous speed (IE spittle running down face as they gasp for air every few minutes), but I also appreciate arguments that use persuasive rhetoric and style rather than reliance on an excess of words to win solely by tabulating dropped arguments.</p> <p>As far as Procedurals, liked or otherwise, is becoming an important if not critical component to debating in NPDA. As such, I am open to all forms of arguments so long as they are connected to the case, it doesn’t take much to make it applicable. I am not a big fan of winning on dropped arguments alone unless the drop so large that the gaping hole left is enough to sink the case. I leave it up to the competitors to set the rounds as they see fit. </p> <p>In IPDA and BP there is a heavier reliance on style and persuasion rather than procedurals. As such, I tend to be less about detailed flows and more attentive to the connections made both within the cases and through clash provided connected to the opponents case. In these rounds, the devil is in the details. I am most appreciative of competitors that can connect to the people in the room by explaining how it might impact us, why it matters to us, or the harms and benefits we would be exposed to should something occur. Ivory tower syndrome, arguing so far up in the building that it become abstract concepts of competing theory, is extraordinarily hard to do given the time frame and is more often isolates competitors and judges from the argument rather than including them.</p>
Shannon Scott - SPU
n/a
Steve Bonner - UWash
<p> </p> <p>Name: Steve Bonner </p> <p>School: University of Washington</p> <p> </p> <p>Section 1: General Information</p> <p>Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear. Judges who write philosophies that are not clear will be asked to rewrite them. Judges who do not rewrite them may be fined or not allowed to judge/cover teams at the NPTE.</p> <p> </p> <p>The most important thing about debating in front of me is to know that I try to vote exactly as I’m told. Please take time in the rebuttals to explain which arguments matter and why. I’m open to pretty much any framework for debate. Just please tell me which one I should use and how arguments should be weighed. Please clearly compare arguments and how they interact. The team that does a better job of that will normally get my ballot. I’ll vote for the most probable arguments if I’m not told to otherwise.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>Section 2: Specific Inquiries</p> <p>Please describe your approach to the following.</p> <p> </p> <p><!--[if !supportLists]-->1. <!--[endif]-->Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?</p> <p><!--[if !supportLists]-->a. <!--[endif]-->I normally give 26-29 with the majority being 27s. Normally give one 28 or 29 each round.</p> <p> </p> <p><!--[if !supportLists]-->2. <!--[endif]-->How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?</p> <p><!--[if !supportLists]-->a. <!--[endif]-->Critical arguments are just like any other argument, I will vote for them if they are well argued and make sense. I am ok with Critical Aff’s but keep in mind that you still have to win Topicality. (unless of course you run your K topically) Contradictory arguments are only a problem if the opposing team makes them a problem. If you run a performance or rhetoric based criticism, you should probably not be contradictory, but only because it guts your solvency. Though if the other side doesn’t make the argument, I won’t make it for them. I really like good K’s (especially ones that are relevant to the topic and function in a Policy/Fiat world) BUT I really dislike bad K’s.</p> <p> </p> <p><!--[if !supportLists]-->3. <!--[endif]-->Performance based arguments…</p> <p><!--[if !supportLists]-->a. <!--[endif]-->I haven’t seen any of these done well, but if I see one, I can think of no reason I wouldn’t vote for it.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><!--[if !supportLists]-->4. <!--[endif]-->Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?</p> <p><!--[if !supportLists]-->a. <!--[endif]-->To vote on T I only need arguments for why I should. I think that T’s need frameworks so that I know what to do with them. I guess I would say that my default way of resolving them is to decide if the Aff is so abusive that a fair round was impossible. I am more than happy to dump that framework and adopt any that either team makes. In round abuse is not necessary to get a ballot, but you need to give me some reason to vote for the T. In-Round abuse, Prep skew, Lost DA’s and CPs, and such are all good reasons to vote for a T, but not the only ones.</p> <p> </p> <p><!--[if !supportLists]-->5. <!--[endif]-->Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?</p> <p><!--[if !supportLists]-->a. <!--[endif]-->I am open to all kinds of CP’s and all the Theory arguments for why they are good or bad. PICs are fine, but I’d vote for a theory position that claims they are not. Same with Agent CP’s, Timeframe CP’s, etc. Fair warning though, it would be pretty easy to win that Delay CP’s are abusive. As for identifying status, competition etc, I think it is a good idea and it makes for better debate, but not a must. I’ll vote however I’m told to.</p> <p> </p> <p><!--[if !supportLists]-->6. <!--[endif]-->Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)</p> <p><!--[if !supportLists]-->a. <!--[endif]-->Yes. Just keep in mind that I won’t be seeing them.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><!--[if !supportLists]-->7. <!--[endif]-->In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?</p> <p><!--[if !supportLists]-->a. <!--[endif]-->PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell me how to vote. I hate making decisions. Make them for me. But if I have to, I first would vote anywhere someone says “A priori” or “most important argument in the round”. If there are multiple I guess the order would be Theory, K’s, High Probability Impacts and then High Magnitude Impacts.</p> <p> </p> <p><!--[if !supportLists]-->8. <!--[endif]-->How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?</p> <p><!--[if !supportLists]-->a. <!--[endif]-->If arguments are not compared at all, then the only way to compare them is to intervene. I don’t like doing that. I read a lot and if forced to I will use the things I know to figure out which argument should carry more weight. Please don’t make me do that. My bias for weighing arguments is toward more probable impacts. If I have to weigh Dehum v Death, I slightly lean toward Dehum, but again, I’ll err on the side of probability.</p>