Thur,+Tyler


 * Updated November 2015 for The Glenbrooks***

For some background, I debated for four years at Marquette University High School in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. My senior year we broke at many national/regional tournaments and qualified for the TOC. I’m now a senior at Michigan State where I've been to/broken at most majors, round robins and the NDT. I taught at two institutes this summer (SDI and CNDI) and I've done more high school research this year than I had in previous ones. That being said, be a little careful with explaining acronyms/the intricacies of your argument if you think that your affirmative/strategy is really innovative or requires an intensive understanding of the resolution.

Everyone says it and almost no one means it, but I think that you should debate what you care about/what interests you/what you're good at doing. In other words, put me in the "big-tent" camp. The predispositions below are my thoughts on debate (not a standard for good debate), and they are really only included so that you might gain some insight into my “judge psychology” or even just who I am as a debater. Plus, I like to rant...

META ISSUES/ABBREVIATED PHILOSOPHY/STRIKE CARD ESSENTIAL

1. College debate has made me more oriented to tech than truth. In my experience as a debater and judge, ignorance of tech generally has resulted in a callous dismissal of arguments as “bad” and increased judge intervention to determine what is “correct” instead of what was debated in the round and which team executed better. That said, truth is a huge bonus, and being on the right side makes your task of being technically proficient easier because you can let logic/evidence speak a little for you.

2. Despite my inclinations to tech, I still care a lot about evidence quality (namely because it demonstrates hard work and provides some insight into the relative truth of arguments). This has a couple of implications: a strong analytical argument can defeat bad evidence, one good card is better than 5 meh ones, and part of what I see as my role in judging is comparing evidence.

3. Every round could use more calculus and comparisons. The most obvious example of this thesis is with impact calc, but I think there are a laundry list of other examples like considering relative risk of arguments, quality of evidence, and author qualifications. As a format, any of these comparisons should have a reason why your argument is more preferable, a reason that frame is important, and a reason why your opponents’ argument is poor/viewed in a poor lens. In the context of impact calc, this means saying that your impact outweighs on timeframe, that timeframe is important, and that while your opponent’s impact might have a large magnitude, I should ignore that frame of decision-making. Engaging your opponents’ arguments on a deeper level and resolving debates for me is the easiest way to get good points. Beyond that, making a decision is functionally comparing each teams’ stance/evidence quality/technical ability on a few nexus questions, so if you’re doing this work for me you will probably like my decision a lot more than if I’m left to sort through a pile of cards.

4. I hold debaters to a higher standard for making an argument. Any claim should be supported with a warrant, evidence and impact (preferably on my decision). Seriously, use early speeches to get ahead on important questions. For instance, I won’t dismiss something like “Perm do Both,” but I think the argument would be bolstered by a reason why the perm is preferable in the 2AC (i.e. how it interacts with the net-benefits) instead of saving those arguments to the 1AR/2AR.

5. Fact: all debates have technical mistakes. Fact: Not all technical mistakes are weighted equally or irreversible. Given those assumptions, I think that the best rebuttals recognize flaws and where they are behind and make “even if” statements or explain why losing an argument does not mean they have lost the debate. I also think that debaters fold too often on mistakes. Just because you dropped a theory argument doesn’t mean that you cannot cross-apply an argument from another theory argument, politics theory or T to save the day.

6. I think offense-defense is a poor way to view debates as it can be an overly rigid while most issues are relative. Consequently I’m a decent judge for “terminal” defense and reasonability. Likewise, I’m not the best judge for arguments like CP Yes/No links to politics.

7. Favorite Critics (Not 100% match in ideology, ask if interested): Leah Moczulski, Eric Morris, Hays Watson, Will Mosley-Jensen, David Cram Helwich, and David Heidt. What are the common themes that I discern? They all work super hard judging debates, care about their role as educators, and offer detailed feedback every round. That's what I will try to be in the round.

WEIRD SCENARIOS

I like to talk about debate a lot (maybe too much), and I think that imagining scenarios sometimes is indicative of where a judge is at in their worldview. While these points are probably elsewhere in the philosophy, maybe this will contextualize some ideas. I've included my favorites below

1) This one (http://the3nr.com/2009/07/05/the-layne-kirshon-hypothetical-resolving-under-discussed-impacts/) - I (very quickly) vote affirmative. To me, each team has agreed that nuclear war is a good thing and the ONLY question to resolve is whether or not the 1AC effectively causes it. I think that this scenario tests a judge's willingness to intervene in the round with their own values. At least where I'm at now, my goal is to minimize those impulses. Does this mean I want you to wipeout the aff...no...please no. That said, it does mean that if even if I *think* your impact is big, I will not do the impact calculus for you.

2) Zero risk - Assume that the aff reads a simple NSA affirmative with one terrorism advantage. The negative reads an advantage CP to solve terrorism (fund DHS, increase international efforts to solve loose nuclear material, vaccinate people for bio-terrorism attacks, etc) and a horrible DA (something silly like curtailing the NSA makes us look like we're lacking resolve to Russia --> global nuclear war over Crimea). The debate progresses as normal until the 2NR/2AR. The negative forgoes the opportunity to debate the case and just goes for the CP/DA. The affirmative starts on the CP saying permutation do both. They, then, decide to not to extend a solvency deficit to their conceded case (though they point out that the plan solves terrorism), and spend the remaining 5:50 beating the DA (Russia doesn't perceive NSA reform, resolve low now because of Syria/Ukraine/etc, no Russia war because of economic ties and global norms, etc). I vote affirmative on perm do both because of ZERO net-benefit. I think that this scenario tests the notion of offense/defense, and to me probabilities can be functionally zero.

GENERIC DISPOSITIONS

Planless affirmatives – The affirmative would ideally have a plan that defends action by the United States federal government (Least important). The affirmative should have a direct tie to the topic. In the context of the high school resolution, this means you would have a defense of decreasing domestic surveillance (Pretty important). I feel that this point is even more salient given that it's a negative state action topic. I'm a sucker for a 2NR that agrees with fundamental problems with the state/macro politics/legal structures but explains why shunning them is worse for the affirmative's own ends. The affirmative MUST defend the implementation of said "plan" - whatever it is (MOST important). While I will NOT immediately vote negative on T or “Framework” as a procedural issue, if you don’t defend instrumental implementation of a topical plan *rooted in the resolutional question*, you will be in a tough spot. I’m also a good judge for T/Framework if the affirmative dodges case turns and debates over the question if domestic surveillance is good or bad. In particular, I am persuaded by arguments about why these affirmatives are unpredictable, under-limit the topic, and create a bad heuristic for problem solving. Short version is that you can do you and there is always a chance I’ll vote for you, but I’m probably not an ordinal one for teams that don’t want to engage the resolutional question.

Critiques—if it’s neoliberalism/deterrence/security/reps, I’m probably pretty comfortable on your argument as it's functionally my major. I’m fine hearing other “critical” arguments, especially if they are contextualized to the affirmative mechanism. One way to make me very happy is to have specific links to the plan’s actions, authors, or representations and to use cross-x to force links. That said, if you're itching to say Baudrillard, Bataille, Deleuze, etc. I'm really not going to be feeling it. Again, not saying I won't vote for you, I'm just trying to be honest. To ensure that I understand what you are saying, substitute out buzz words and tags for explanation. On framework, the affirmative will almost surely be able to weigh their 1AC (unless they totally airball), and I'm pretty hesitant to place reps/scholarship/epistemology before material reality. Finally, I would say that the best way to get my ballot is to explain why the K comes first or turns the case. The best blocks write multiple ballots with a laundry list of “tricks” (serial policy failure, root cause, PIKs, deontology, etc.). The best 2NRs pick which *one* was mishandled.

In terms of being affirmative against these arguments, I think that too often teams lose sight of the easy ballots and/or tricks. The 1AR and 2AR need to “un-checklist” those arguments. In terms of disproving the critique, I think I’m pretty good for alternative fails/case outweighs or the permutation with a defense of pragmatism or reformism. Of those 2 - I'm best for your alt does nothing...we have an aff...

Case- I’m a huge fan. With that, I think that it’s very helpful for the neg (obviously?). I believe that no matter what argument you plan to go for, (excluding T/theory) case should be in some part of the 2nr. In the context of the critique, you can use case arguments to prove that the threats of the 1AC are flawed or constructed, that there are alternative causes to the affirmative that only the alternative solves, or that the impacts of the affirmative are miniscule and the K outweighs. For CPs, even if you lose a solvency deficit, you can still win because the net benefit outweighs the defended affirmative. Going for case defense to the advantage that you think the CP solves the least forces me to drop you twice as I have to decide the CP doesn’t solve AND that the case impact outweighs your net-benefit. That seems like a pretty good spot to be in.

As an additional note, I think that most cases are hastily thrown together to get to the largest impact fastest. Negatives should realize this and use smart analytical arguments to short circuit the affirmative. This idea is where cross-x comes in. Expect a bump in points if you are able to weave in 1AC cross-x arguments and extend them to the 2NR.

CP- My favorite ones are specific to the 1AC with case turns as net benefits. Aside from that, I think that I am more inclined than most to vote aff on the perm when there is a trivial/mitigated net benefit vs. a smallish solvency deficit, but in the end I would hope you would tell me what to value first. I had a big section written up on theory, and I decided it's too round-dependent to list out. I still think that more than 2 conditional positions is SUPER risky, functional > textual competition, 50 state fiat is absurd, judge kick is good, consult/condition/delay/threaten aren't worth the flow paper, and interpretations matter A LOT.

DA- I think that all DA debates should have a focus on the IL to impacts of the affirmative— this means make arguments like we access or we turn their impact. This probably stems back to my belief that, as stated above, all debates should have a focus on comparisons. This involves considering the mathematic chance the DA happens. Use your speeches to consider the chance of each internal link. In terms of other impact calc, obviously timeframe and magnitude are important, but consider more advanced arguments like intervening actors, certainty etc.

Topicality- I default to reasonability, but I can be convinced that Competing Interpretations is a decent model. The negative does not need actual abuse, but they do need to win why their potential abuse is likely as opposed to just theoretical. That is, I'll be less persuaded by a 25-item case list than a really good explanation of a few devastating new affirmatives they allow. If I were to pick only one standard to go for, it would be predictable limits. They shape all pre-round research that guides in-round clash and ensure that debates are dialogues instead of monologues. Finally, as a framing point, I generally think bigger topics = better.

SPEAKER POINTS

As a general guide given how subjective points are, I try to award points based on this model…

29.4 to 29.7 – Top 5 Speaker 29.1 to 29.3 – Top 10 Speaker 28.7 to 29.0 – Speaker Award 28.4 to 28.6 – Should break/Have a chance 28.1 to 28.3 – Outside change at breaking to .500 27.8 to 28 – Not breaking, average 27.3 to 27.7 – Keep working Below 27 – Something really egregious