Lanning,Eric

AFFILIATIONS: The Woodlands Michigan State

BIG PICTURE THINGS

Everything that follows is a soft recommendation or explanation of preferences; I can and have been persuaded against these positions. I would __much__ rather judge a debate where you successfully deviate from my preferences than one where you miserably adapt.

WARNING – I do not think that arguments I read in high school are necessarily good or strategic, you should be wary of reading positions just because I went for them frequently. (Exception – Malthus)

Offense vs. Defense – Offense win debates. I believe that the team that access the largest/fastest/most probable impact relative to their opponents largest/fastest/most probable impact will win. However, there is sometimes a defensive argument that is so well developed or so obviously true that it can reduce the “risk” of a particular argument to functionally zero.

Comparison – The best debates are ones in which both sides make ample comparisons between evidence and arguments. Good Debaters discuss author qualifications, interactions between impacts, and the quality of evidence of BOTH sides. These debaters will find themselves rewarded with speaker points and ballots.

TOPICALITY

I believe that the affirmative should be an example of the resolution. This is probably the one part of my philosophy that is less flexible; if you think, “Topicality is genocide” I am a strike. When judging actual topicality debates I tend to gravitate towards competing interpretations; however, I believe that affirmatives can win that their interpretation provides reasonable limits and negative ground. Please don’t read throwaway Topicality arguments if you could not credibly extend your argument in the 2NR, why read it?

THEORY

I always operate under the assumption that I should reject the argument not the team. I have a pretty high threshold for theory arguments so make sure that you do the necessary impact work to persuade me that your opponents should lose the debate simply for introducing an argument. Generally good things are Dispo, Pics, and International Fiat. OK things are condo, agent counterplans, and multiple actor fiat. Less Good things include multiple conditional worlds, consultation counterplans, and timeframe fiat.

FRAMEWORK

I think that the affirmative should get the full weight of their advantages against critiques. Any other framework argument is probably unfair to the negative or unnecessary for the affirmative. I am rarely persuaded that framework is a “voting issue” outside of allowing the affirmative access to their case.

DISADVANTAGES/COUNTERPLANS

A good negative strategy almost always involves a counterplan and disadvantage. There is not really that much to say about these positions expect for the few theoretical concerns I discussed above.

CRITIQUES

This is probably the most relevant information for the people reading this philosophy. If you have a well researched, specific, and interesting critique you should read it. If your argument more resembles an “Uber-Generic” or “Dirty Word” critique I am unlikely to be persuaded. The affirmative and negative should discuss the role of the ballot and alternative, as this is often the weakest part of the critique. In general winning these debates requires the same level of argument comparison and technical execution as any other.

As a final note,

Have fun and play nice.