Merrell,+Brandon

** Brandon Merrell **
**Southern Illinois University** (top speaker at 2011 NPTE)

If you have specific questions that extend beyond the purview of this philosophy, ask me before the round.

**Approach to Judging:** I'll do my best to fairly evaluate any clearly-defended and impacted argument. This philosophy merely explains how certain arguments make more sense to me than do others. Even if you quote from this directly you won't automatically win the argument; you still need to explain, debate, and defend your position - I simply hold a predisposition in your favor.

By default I determine, based on arguments in the round, whether the topical plan presented by the affirmative is preferable to the status quo or a competitive option. If you want to change this decision structure, you should do so explicitly by providing a rubric with which I can evaluate the debate. If the other team accedes to it or fails to prove it less desirable, I'll use it.

**Argument Evaluation:** Although almost everything should be debated out, the caveat is this: //if your strategy relies on contradicting fundamental tenets of debate, then I'm probably not the judge for you//. I'm sure there are other things, but some of the basics are: time limits should be obeyed, the death of the activity would be bad, affirmatives should defend a topical plan (although they may have different ways to interpret that plan and can argue that their representations, etc. are equally or more important than the effects of the plan's implementation), negatives always have access to fiat (although limits on its breadth and specific application can be good), etc.

I'll attempt to judge fairly, but I do not claim to be "tabula rasa" and am perfectly comfortable passing judgment. If an argument does not rise to a minimum threshold of coherence and explanation (<5-word theory arguments, for example), you shouldn't expect to win the round on it as I'll probably disregard it and will be highly sympathetic to arguments that it isn't important enough to independently merit the rejection of the other team. Finally, if you don't attempt to explain the utility of piece of evidence read during the debate, I won't read it afterward just because you tell me it's good.

**Disadvantages:** I think the strength of the link is most important when evaluating a disadvantage. For example, if the uniqueness arguments are very strong, then the disad requires a high-magnitude link to trigger the impact. Conversely, if a disad is "brinkish," then although the negative has to win a smaller link they also need to distinguish the plan from the conditions that caused the brink.

I think many teams make "risk of a link" arguments when they are really saying "we only have uniqueness." Uniqueness is almost never absolute, so it neither controls link direction nor allows you to assert the existence of a link if none exists. Uniqueness can influence the probability of a particular chain of events occurring, but the link is what triggers the action. Thus, you must win a link and control its net-direction before assessing your impacts.

**Theory:** I'll vote on theory if told to do so, but you should warrant these arguments well if that's your strategy because I am easily persuaded that rejecting an argument is sufficient to solve the impact to most theory debates (except on questions of status, obviously). As an aside, I also think a lot of theory debates could be avoided or quickly resolved if teams went for their counterplans. It's often easier than it looks to concede "CP does squat" but win DA turns/outweighs case.

These issues should be debated in the round, but I generally think that the "gold standard" for argument legitimacy is specific evidence. The necessary degree of specificity is a matter of interpretation, but arguments about how it need only be reflexive of the affirmative are appealing to me. For example, if the 1AC solvency evidence is a blog about a discrete and specific action, it's probably impossible for the cp cards to be specifically assumptive of the plan.

In general, I tend to believe that PICs that focus the debate to substantial elements of the plan are good, while those that rely on "normal means" for competition are not. You may want to ask about questions of textual / functional competition, because my beliefs on those issues are fairly complicated. Put simply, I think counterplans should ideally be both functionally and textually competitive, but have an unusual interpretation of what textual competition constitutes. I'm happy to hear condition (if/then) and consult arguments, especially if you have specific evidence. Finally, a tailored defense of an argument is likely to serve you well against a generic "___ bad" block.

**Kritiks:** //Note:// I am not the ideal judge for the K. Against a good team, I think the K is generally on the wrong side of the framework debate, the wrong side of the permutation double-bind, the losing side of whether the alternative will accomplish anything, and is at best tied on whether a discussion of critical theory yields better education than an analysis of policy choices. However, if you're confident in your preparation and feel that this is your strongest argument then feel free to read it. I'll still evaluate the round based on arguments made within it, but you should be aware of my personal opinions and predispositions.

//Specifics:// Ideally, I shouldn't need to understand the deeper nuances of your kritik as long as I know how it interacts with the other arguments in the debate. I'm happy to listen to and vote on all manner of criticisms, but I'll warn you that I'm not particularly well-versed on much of the literature and I won't do much work trying to reconstruct the meaning and/or utility of arguments that were not coherent to me when they were made in the round. Thus, providing a clear explanation for your argument is probably more important than trying to impress me with your cultural studies vocab list.

Negatives should have specific links, clearly stated implications, and strong answers to perms. You should also lay out a clear alternative. Affirmatives tend to lose to kritiks in front of me when they don't aggressively answer and engage the alternative. Negatives lose to critical affs when they fail to explain how their arguments (framework or otherwise) interact with the claims of the 1AC. I am highly susceptible to arguments that allow the aff to be weighed alongside the K.

Ethical imperatives are fine, but if you drop / badly lose a major impact then I will have a hard time finding your argument persuasive. You're much better off putting at least some defense against other impacts, even if you have flaming "ignore other consequences" cards.

As far as performance goes, you should keep your clothes on but otherwise I consider almost anything to be a valid argument as long as you win your framework. That said, I often don't enjoy performance as done in high school; I find the debate to be shallow and annoying and vastly prefer other arguments.

**Topicality / Procedurals:** Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. Any affirmative that does not defend a topical plan loses. Absent definitional support, "debate-ability" is not a defense to topicality, and even then it's only parallel impact defense to their ground/fairness arguments.

Topicality is a question of competing definitions, but you should keep in mind that your standards must accomplish two things: first, they must demonstrate the applicability of your definition within the context of the topic; and second, they should evaluate what debate would look like if that definition were to be consistently employed. Take note that the latter question is far less important than the former because regardless of how productive are the benefits that could be produced by a given definition, they are irrelevant if that definition is arbitrary, inaccessible, or unpredictable within the context of the topic. For example, even if we took it for granted that there were a plethora of educational benefits and reciprocal ground claims that could be accessed via an alternative energy debate, they are irrelevant if "alternative energy" is not proven to be an appropriate definition of a word in the resolution.

Additionally, I think that most debaters spend far too much time debating the link (violation) on procedurals and not enough time debating internal links to their impacts (comparing the effects of different interpretations on what and how we debate). For example, if the affirmative wins that their definition solves the impact to topicality (i.e. fairness or education in their various guises) as well as the negative's, then there is probably no reason to vote negative. If the negative wins that their interpretation is marginally better in a highly specific way, they need to justify why that minor distinction should be rewarded with the ballot. Within this framework, it should be obvious that if you do not “meet” any interpretation within the round it is difficult to vote for you.

**Speaks / Speed:** I reward substance over style. It will annoy me if your arguments are blippy or under-warranted, particularly on theory. I reserve the option to reduce speaker points if you are exceptionally rude or threatening to your opponents, but this would require extreme behavior as I fully appreciate good-natured heckling. I flow pretty well, but I'll prompt you should speed or clarity become an issue.

**Other:** Good rebuttalists (and hence successful ones) //resolve// arguments. This means identifying pressure points on the various positions in the debate and making arguments about why your cards / warrants / analytics are stronger than those of your opponent. Simply extending arguments absent comparison leaves it up to me to decide which is "better," and you probably will not be happy with how I resolve that question without your guidance. Even concessions must be impacted. Any argument that does not directly answer or eventually resolve the question "For whom am I to vote, and why?" is irrelevant, conceded or not.

Defense is the most underutilized tool in debate. Debaters tend to focus too much on their impact and not nearly enough on how / whether it is accessed.

Presumption is toward less change than the status quo.

Do not purely extend evidence by author/date. I sometimes won't flow author names, so referencing part of the tag as well will serve you well.

As long as you explain to me how the arguments interact, I won't consider something "dropped" if it is intuitively answered by another argument in a speech.

If you want a hint about persuasion, it's that you should be honest with me about how the debate has progressed. I sometimes grow tired of debaters who insist that they are somehow winning every argument. Admit your own weaknesses and recognize the strengths of your opponents - it makes you seem more credible.

Remember that winning does not require you to win the most arguments, merely the right arguments. You need to win access to one argument and then explain how that argument interacts with other positions and why it is more important than anything else in the round. That's all. It's really that easy.

Finally, have fun and remember that this is your debate and you're probably better off doing what you do best rather than catering to my partialities.