Case,+Tim

I am currently the Vice Principal of Student Activities at Presentation High School. I was formerly the Director of Speech and Debate at Presentation and an assistant coach of Policy Debate and LD Debate at Celebration High School.

Overall, I believe debate is debate regardless of event. There are specific properties of each that make them unique (mostly speech times) and historical conventions for each that I do give some credence to. If you are going to deviate from those conventions, simply be prepared to defend those deviations.


 * __LD Debate Paradigm:__**

I think there is a definite side bias towards the negative as a result of speech times. As such, I view the speech times more like:

1AC - 6 min NC - 7 min 2AC - 4 min NR - 6 min AR - 3 min

In the end, I think part of the problem with debate and the existing side bias is the impossible task of doing what the negative gets to do in 7 minutes in 4, that is, asking the 1AR to actually be both a constructive and a rebuttal (even though we call it just a rebuttal) with the expectation that not only are full arguments made in response to the negative positions but full extensions and every bit of offense - including weighing, warranted extensions, and complete development of the argument - is being done. This in the end, with increasing negative flexibility and the trend towards certain type of negative arguments, makes me wonder how it is I ever voted aff. As such, I will be significantly less strict with the substance of an extension in the 1AR and suggest affirmatives spend more time developing their strategy against negative positions and less time extending their offense. I do believe the 1AR needs to make their strategy and extensions known in the 1AR and that the strategy of the affirmative should not be something that is flushed out after the last negative speech. My hope is that this additional time might allow for the 1AR to truly engage negative positions in an offensive way (i.e. developing positional responses against negative advocacies such as disads against counterplans, kritiks against negative advocacies, etc. or running additional advantages to the AC advocacy that it solves that would allow for new weighing and competition against negative positions). In the end, I'd like to see the 1AR actually be more of a second constructive speech than a rebuttal but I get that without additional speeches after the NR, the 1AR still needs to define what their entire strategy is moving forward. The burden will still be on the 1AR to respond to answers to their offense, but I will be much more lenient on the need for the 1AR to fully detail every bit of their extension of the original argument itself.

As is the case for debaters, I have preferences for what I like to see in debates. I'll vote for anything, but you're doing to have to do more work to justify things on the "don't want to see" list.


 * What I prefer to see:**

- Preference #1: Kritik debate that is resolutional. I think there is a reason why we are given a resolution and we should use it. I am a fan of using debate as a means to engage in personal advocacies, but I also think the topic that we research ought to matter. If you want to make change in the world, do it through a resolutional advocacy. Treat the aff advocacy and neg advocacy as just that....advocacies. Articulate the resolution or the response to the resolution as a preferable ethical, philosophical world and you will have a very active and very engaged critic in the back of the room. I do think if you're affirmative, your alternative needs to be resolutional and topical. If you're negative, go wild, but be sure there are specific links either to the resolution or the affirmative advocacy. This doesn't mean I won't vote for an argument that isn't resolutional, but I will give far more leeway to arguments that say it should be.

- Preference #2: A util debate where util is the presumed framework, meta-ethics are not present, and I actually get to hear a link/impact debate and real weighing of arguments. Feel free to get crafty with the nature of your util standard (I am not of the opinion that util standards are best when they are just straight up util) and weigh through your standard. Counterplans, disads, etc....I'm all for it.

- Preference #3: An ethics debate. I'm not against moral/procedural rules and not against positions that advocate them, I am against deontic criterions that become util standards for strategy reasons. I don't think debates about ethics are games and as a result I don't want to see debate treated like it. I also caution you, I can't divorce myself from what I know and don't know. I am not a student of philosophy and I haven't spent a lot of time reading into the theories behind the arguments that debaters often use in rounds. Though you may have a good idea what they say, if what exists in the round is not enough to help me understand the position you are advocating, you are going to have a hard time getting my ballot. I am certainly not the smartest person around and there are many judges who can follow dense philosophy spewed quickly far better than I can but I am also not dumb and am trying to get it. If I do, I'll vote for it. If I don't, I wont.

The first two are really the only things that make me happy anymore in debate rounds. Again, it doesn't mean I wont listen if the above is not what you do, but it does mean I will be more skeptical of what you are saying.


 * What I don't want to see:**

- #1: meta-ethics (whatever that means)...just argue it as a standard...I'm not smart enough for your arguments - I'll just straight up admit that.

- #2: skepticism...i think we are better people than this.

- #3: theory debates that occur in the NR or 2AR, or theory in the 1AR just for shits and giggles (my definition of this is theory developed to an extent where you could have just answered the damn argument), unless its an extension of a framework argument made in the AC or that something that has occurred that has led to significant, visible in-round abuse.

- #4: one or multiple necessary but insufficient standards

- #5: presumption debates

- #6: potential for abuse


 * Finally, just a few disclaimers:**

- #1 - An argument has a claim, warrant, and impact. I WILL NOT VOTE ON UNDER-DEVELOPED ARGUMENTS in the final rebuttals. I simply wont do it. If you spend 5 seconds extending your offense in the NR or 2AR...you can bet I will tell you that you didn't extend offense. I find a lot of my decisions come down to this because both debaters do an atrocious job of extending offense. With me if you spend more time developing your offense than your opponent does theirs you will be in good shape more than likely. Keep in mind 1ARs...I'm more lenient here.

- #2 - There needs to be clash between frameworks if the advocacies proposed by both sides do not directly interact with each other. I have absolutely no idea how to evaluate a disad that relies on a status quo/fiat based framework (for example - it argues that passing the affirmative as a policy would trade-off with some other policy, i.e. health care) when the AC is a stock position with a value and value criterion and analysis regarding how the resolution is simply tested through their standards to determine the winner. You MUST engage the framework, especially if you are doing something that is more untraditional in an LD sense. Don't run a plan with no evaluation of how the plan functions or proves the resolution true. Don't run a counterplan unless you are forcing the affirmative to defend the AC as an advocacy.

- #3 - I don't like to read evidence. I think this happens too much these days and as a result the evidence wins people debates. I think you should be the reason you win with the evidence as support, not the other way around. If I read your evidence at the end of the round you can bet that is not a good thing as I more than likely have to intervene either way to decide. Speech docs seem to be the rage these days. If I have to use them in order to piece a round together you've done a terrible job sign-posting or I'm concerned whats on your doc is not what you've said in the round. My suggestion - actually flow arguments and sign post where you are based upon your flows.