Symonds,+Adam

Adam Symonds Director of Forensics Arizona State University

__A preempt__: I include detailed information about my predispositions for debates, but they are nothing more than abstract opinions about debate that have little to no influence over the way I have adjudicated debates. I find myself to be more a critic of argument than a policy-maker. This whole critical/policy divide doesn’t make any sense to me: good arguments are good arguments in any format. Among the top debates I have had the opportunity to judge, I would rank both critical and policy debates. This doesn’t mean I will vote for craziness for the sake of being crazy – I’ll call bulls*** on bad policy and critical arguments alike. In general critical arguments make more sense to me on the negative (as they are unbound by topical constraints), but I can certainly be persuaded to bracket off such concerns in light of the affirmative.

Some things that I find particularly persuasive include:

__Impact comparisons__: Answering the following questions usually coincides with a W: What is my role as a judge? What arguments are of paramount concern for me to evaluate? One caveat here: “fiat is an illusion” or “discourse comes first” don’t make any sense to me – these seem like arbitrary ways to not evaluate the affirmative and are wholly unnecessary to engage in critical debate. Good criticisms and philosophical inquiries require no such crutches – their impact work is well developed. Given the critical turn in debate, it is particularly important for you to foreground your framework for the debate. Typically, my decision starts by determining who controls the framework for argument analysis. Whatever type of debate you prefer, PLEASE provide overviews to frame your arguments in the rebuttals. I find that the lack of framework analysis in the overviews tends to disproportionately disadvantage the negative for what it’s worth.

__Even if … because…:__ I have yet to hear a more effective tool for rebuttals than this mantra. The legacy of Becky Galentine lives on. You aren’t winning everything. So it would behoove you to protect yourself by indicating why you still win even if your opponent should win some of their important arguments.

__Evidence comparisons:__ Bottom line, the best teams in the country compare the critical evidence and give me the lens through which to look at the evidence. Treat this like voting in Chicago: do it early and often.

__Theory Debates:__ Those who want to win theory debates (including T I’d say) in front of me generally are funny, have offensive and defensive arguments (possibly even separated as such!?!?) and use analogies. One other note here – seriously do not expect me to vote on quick un-developed cheap shots

__Permutations:__ I would be remiss in all of this if I did not point out how important these are in my perspective of debate. Both teams need to pay close attention to permutations to protect themselves. I frequently find debates won or lost because not enough argumentation occurs on this part of the debate. Affirmatives put themselves at risk by either not explaining the function of the permutation or messing up theoretical objections. Most important in this regard – what are the net benefits to the permutation? Negatives put themselves at risk by not responding to affirmative explanations about the permutation’s ability to solve all the links to the K by including the alternative.