Peterson,+Jason

Assistant coach St. Mark's School of Texas
updated 9-14-07

Here are two factors you should consider when deciding if I am a judge you would like to have –

1. The affirmative should have to defend their plan, but they are the ONLY ones that should get to defend ALL of it. If your advocacy (either a counterplan or a kritik) potentially incorporates all of plan then you are probably taking too much from the aff.

2. Speaker points are awarded based on a) clarity, b) smart, intelligent speeches that include comparisons between competing arguments and c) your perceived preparedness. A well thought out, specific strategy will put you on the fast track to good speaker points.

Here is some more information –

Specification - I really feel that the affirmative is obligated to specify as far as the literature supports. For example, if there is a robust debate in the literature about which agent in the federal government should enact your policy then I feel you are obligated to specify one or more of the branches in your plan. The failure to specify is in many ways an intentional move by the affirmative to rob the negative of valuable and GERMANE arguments.

PICs – as alluded to in the above discussion of specification, the germaneness, and ultimately the fairness, of a PIC is determined almost entirely by whether literature exists to defend the distinction that you are drawing between plan and counterplan. If you don’t have literature defending the difference and/or if your whole strategy is contingent on one bad link card for a contrived net-benefit then the affirmative probably has a defensible argument that the counterplan is not predictable and hence unfair. It is worth noting that I have voted affirmative ONCE in 7 years on “PICs Bad.”

Dispositionality / Conditionality – I don’t have a strong assumption about these issues. I will say that it is next to impossible to win me over on the argument that dispositionality is bad, absent a strategic blunder by the negative. In these theory debates it is important to carve out a legitimate interpretation and defend that it is BOTH fair and educational. Many judges, whether they are willing to admit it or not, have a difficulty flowing topicality and theory debates. Please be conscious of this and respond by slowing down and providing at least one sentence warrant for your arguments.

Topicality – When I debated I thought that debaters who always went for topicality were lazy (and many of them were). On this topic I think there are a few important interpretations that narrow the number of affirmatives in a reasonable manner and provide a basis for core negative arguments. If you feel that the affirmative is outside of the topic then don’t be discouraged from going for topicality. One thing you should be aware of – I think many negatives strive to find the “most limiting interpretation,” resulting in a skewed and less educational topic. The key is to create a reasonable limit where there is some room for the affirmative to maneuver, while at the same time providing the negative some predictability if they choose to honorably research the topic. This really comes down to the scope of the resolution and how your interpretation fits within it.

Framework – I have had trouble *fairly* judging debates that come down to framework issues because I can’t wrap my simple mind around half of the arguments made by teams that think the role of the ballot is something other than determining whether the United States federal government should ….I am a strong advocate of switch-side debating because I feel it is both the most fair and most educational approach. If you are affirmative and unwilling to defend a world where the federal government takes topical action then you should find other judges who think it is ok for someone to sign up for a basketball tournament and instead show up with a tennis racket and tennis balls. Questions of personal identity and personal politics should not, and probably won’t, determine which team wins this debate.

Kritiks – Debaters who have been successful reading kritiks in front of me have made them seem like counterplans that solve the root cause of the affirmative’s harm, while avoiding some non-unique net benefit. I have read almost none of the critical literature and there are not any Zizek books on my Christmas list for next year. I find most critical literature irrelevant to the day-to-day affairs of the world. The negative should be willing to write down the text of their alternative or be VERY SPECIFIC about what it is and not waver from that description. Please don't make the argument that fiat is illusory or similar arguments as to why voting affirmative doesn't really do anything in terms of real world change. Voting affirmative simply endorses a world where the government SHOULD take action. If the affirmative can win that there are benefits to taking that action they stand a good chance of winning. If you are affirmative against the kritik I encourage you to stand your ground by defending the validity of your 1AC claims and prove why the alternative can’t solve as well as the plan.

I will leave you with a few final pieces of information. First, I like to reward debaters who are strategic and smart. If you can recognize that there is only one way for you to win the debate and you strap in on that argument for a majority of your speech then you are likely to receive higher speaker points and potentially the ballot as well. Second, I am impressed by debaters that use cross-x time effectively by going after the warrants in the opposing team’s arguments and evidence. A well thought out, aggressive cross-examination will be rewarded with higher speaker points. Finally and perhaps MOST IMPORTANT, I think that debate has become faster than it needs or should be. I might just be having a negative reaction to unclear debaters who don’t explain their arguments but I think a trend is developing where the desire to talk as fast as possible is replacing __needed explanation__. __Please don’t__ slow down significantly (or to conversational speed) because that would __destroy__ what I think is awesome about debate. I’m just making an appeal for debaters to slow down to 85% - 90% of their top end speed and provide warrants for arguments. Debate is a great game, filled with some unbelievable people. I hope you take your role in the community seriously and try to leave it a better place than you found it.