Tews,+Richard

Richard Tews Director of Debate/Head Debate Coach University of Northern Iowa

Over the last few years I have figured out that my preferences have changed considerably and that I am a little less open minded than I previously thought. Despite what you may think about me I would really rather hear a disad and case turn debate than any other debate. That being said I do judge a lot of kritik rounds and am perfectly comfortable adjudicating them however they are not my favorite. There is more about that below. Whatever the argument you choose it is imperative that you do IMPACT ANALYSIS at the end; there is nothing that grates on my nerves more than having to compare impacts for myself after the round. I think that my favorite round would be one that involves a large involved case debate, with lots of analysis and actual arguments instead of just piles of cards.

I think that you should have a plan text when you are affirmative, regardless of how you justify it and just reading the whole resolution is not sufficient as a plan text unless you will defend the actual implementation of all four overrules. I think all affirmatives should have to defend the implementation of the plan text. The only thing this does is make the link easier for disads and K’s on the neg. I think most framework arguments are bullshit. Usually these debates boil down to one of two things 1) we should get to weigh our impacts or 2) you should be excluded for making us think about something we don’t want too. Both of these arguments are stupid at this point in time you should be able to defend against a kritik and you can always weigh your impact you just have to deal with the other teams timeframe arguments i.e. our K comes first. However both of these arguments are rendered moot if the affirmative does not have a plan text or refuses to defend the implementation of the plan. I do vote for framework argument but it is usually because one team doesn’t answer something or take the argument too seriously and does not make the type of arguments that I just made above.

Theory I am not very good at theory debates. Typically in theory debates I am left on my own to decipher the blippy arguments that one team or both read off a bloc at top speed. This means that I often don’t write down very fast “blippy“/not explained arguments. This means that I often have trouble understanding theory args that are no more than two or three words, and done at top speed. The problem with all of this is that I never really went for theory much as a debater and so I am often not able to infer what you mean. This is not to say that I won’t vote on theory, especially if dropped. It means that if you want to go for theory you need to buckle down early and give me some concrete explanation and examples. Also slowing down so that I can write more than a word or two would be exceptionally helpful. Usually in a theory debate I vote for the side that I understand the most from earliest in the debate, e.g. just because the 2AR is clear it doesn’t mean you win if I can’t understand the 2AC.

Flowing I would describe my flowing as average, probably about middle fast. If you are going too fast/incomprehensibly I will simply stop writing and if you correct the mistake I will start writing again. Most people don’t catch on to this last part. If I am looking at the speaker during the round instead of writing I probably do not understand what is being said. I FLOW WARRANTS (as many as possible) so if I stop writing you need to slow down or get clearer. I don’t prompt very often even if you are unclear I just don’t write, so for god’s sake have your partner watch to make sure I am writing. If I do prompt and you think you are clear then try slowing down that might help. I want to flow as much as possible and I want to judge off my flow instead of my memory but if I don’t get something then that is a problem for both of us.

Kritik This is a section I have struggled with a lot over the last few years (especially b/c of the nature of my current team at Weber). DO NOT run a kritik in front of me just for the hell of it because you think I like them a lot or because you think you heard that I have a reputation for them. The truth of the matter is that they are not my ideal argument form. I don’t read the literature very much (other than the stuff my teams run) and I don’t think about post-modernity if I can help it. IF you are going to run a K is front of me the “big stick” is probably the best. At the end of the round I need an impact that I can wrap my brain around. Whether you like it or not a nuclear war is easier for me to understand than no value to life. And you need to weigh your impacts against those of the other team. I pretty much adjudicate K debates like I do disads, did you prove a link and does the impact outweigh. Unless given some sort of other calculus I view kritik perms as no link arguments, though I am open to people advocating them in front of me, you just have to make and explain the argument as for why you can advocate the perm. Look the truth of the matter is that I don’t understand a lot of the kritiks that are being run e.g. Nietzsche or Lacanian Zizek args. You CAN win these arguments in front of me but I need a lot of analysis from you that interprets/“dumbs” down the cards for me because if left to my own devises I could misinterpret your evidence. Using a lot of big words and literature specific jargon will be detrimental to you. The team that makes the argument the simplest will both usually win and be rewarded with speaker points.

The other major myth that I should talk about is performance and identity politics. I will be blunt here; if you run these types of arguments you probably do not want me judging you. The simple fact is that I don’t get it. I have judged a lot of these rounds (admittedly not this year, so maybe this section is pointless but just in case) and after 5 years I still don’t get it. I am really just not a very sympathetic year. I know a lot of people that I consider friends that run this type of argument and so I want to save you the hassle by telling you to low pref me. I am just not a big fan of debates about debate. Also I DO NOT vote on implicit arguments.

The reasons that I vote for K’s most often is 1) one team drops something major 2) that one team just doesn’t understand what the argument is 3) one team runs framework and the other team doesn’t deal with impact turns correctly. Please use cross-ex to clarify b/c usually I also am confused about the minutia of the position. CX should be about more than just the condition of the alternative, make sure you understand the link and the implications of the impact in regards to your claims.

Evidence Truth is known I don’t read a lot of evidence. I think that the burden is (and should be) on the debaters to make arguments and let the evidence be backing to the arguments. I think that too often debaters just read a lot of cards and hope that judges pick out an argument after calling for all the cards. You SHOULD explain warrants in your evidence as thoroughly as possible and then I will call for the cards if I still don’t understand. I will also call for evidence if a card is contested in a substantive way. Meaning that one team makes an actually argument about why a piece of evidence is suspect beyond just saying “no warrant”. I try desperately to not reconstruct round so I don’t call for a lot of evidence—usually I don’t call for any. Don’t get me wrong, I LOVE EVIDENCE. I do as much research as my team will use and I enjoy innovative strategies that center around topic specific research. I just think sometimes we get the role of the evidence a little twisted. Please cut good cards and use them. But at the same time don’t be afraid to step away from the blocs and show how smart you are by making good analytical arguments.