Keenan,+Dylan

Dylan Keenan
Judging for: Emory University, Westminster Schools Debated for: University of Michigan (4 years) There are three things I think are important: 1) Smart arguments. Evidence doesn’t make an argument and an argument doesn’t require evidence. Obvious application: Most advantages have many alternate causes not solved by the aff, most disad impacts have no threshold and are empirically denied. Less obvious application: I dislike the practice of building affs (or critiques) around tricky distinctions grounded in one card but defying the common sense of most literature. I particularly dislike teams using that one card as a reason to discount all evidence against the aff (or critique) 2) Qualified evidence: Probably more than almost any other judge you will encounter, I believe your authors matter. This is especially true on scientific questions (environmental impacts, global warming, feasibility of space colonization, nuclear winter…) but reading evidence from peer-reviewed journals is a great way to get me to ere for your arguments. I can be persuaded that evidence from a blog should be treated as an analytical, and that peer review is a reason to prefer an argument independently of the rhetorical power of the evidence. That said, it is your burden to apply this. I won’t read quals and decide that on my own. 3) I like arguments that clash: Good case debates, Counterplans that are well-developed in the literature and big disads. I dislike affirmatives that are built around not linking and I thoroughly hate counterplan strategies that are designed to not have to answer anything about the 1AC because they effectively do the plan. I’m a sympathetic ear for topicality and theory arguments in these situations The following are presumptions of varying strength which I will apply in the absence of contestation Some stuff about theory: Questions, please ask.
 * 1) T is a voter even if not explicitly extended as such
 * 2) New 2NR impact calc justifies new 2AR impact calc
 * 3) Case can be explicitly in the 2AC and 2AR without being in the 1AR if it is not in the block
 * 4) Arguments have to make sense together in a minimal way. That is, I won’t vote on a set of arguments that imply a logical contradiction
 * 5) Predictable cross-applications are cool, especially on theory
 * 6) New affs = lots of leeway on theory. Sketchy affs = some leeway on theory
 * 7) Offense Defense good. But offense needs to be statistically significant
 * 8) Large systemic risks outweigh huge low risk impacts
 * 9) Critiques are not stand-alone voters. Most are on face moderate harms mitigation
 * 1) Unlike the “trendy” folks these days I think framework is a fine argument. K affs should have a plan and be topical. Neg K’s don’t always rise to the burden of rejoinder.
 * 2) I think most arguments are best thought of through legitimacy rather than competition. I think consultation competes, it’s just not fair.
 * 3) I think many arguments pertaining to CP legitimacy are reasons to reject the team. In my mind rejecting the argument is like telling a thief they only have to return what they stole. Not exactly an optimal deterrent
 * 4) (3) does not apply to perm theory and assorted cheap shots. I’ll vote on these if dropped but you have to explain the VI in such a way that it overcomes the presumption of argument rejection
 * 5) Definitely unfair counterplans include consultation, conditioning (although the lit base may make the ag topic an exception for this), states and multi-actor international fiat, and discourse PICS. Probably unfair counterplans include domestic agent counterplans. Probably fair practices include multiple counterplans, conditionality, and PICS that compete textually and functionally
 * 6) I think the states counterplan has done more to ruin this activity than ANY other argument. It is as or more unfair than the K and consultation CP, but it has (for some unknown reason) maintained a veneer of respectability which has forced us to reorient and even reject entire topics because of its existence. Face facts: there is no literature on all 50 states acting uniformly. “testing” the USFG in this manner is unproductive. And the end result is that any domestic topic gets dominated by military, Indians and federal buildings. Mainstream proposals are anathema in this world.