Stone,+Chris

** **Update - given that I ask for speech docs before speeches, I'd prefer speech transfers happen via email chain to save time. cstone387 at gmail dot com **  ** General Thoughts - ** - Debate is a game. - Debate should be characterized by hard work, well-researched arguments, and clash. An incredibly high percentage of debates are won with hard work outside of the debate. As such, I will strive to work hard as a judge. - Debate is a communication activity. Speaker points and arguments will be affected by communication. Arguments lacking a claim, warrant, and an impact as well as arguments communicated in an incoherent manner will be evaluated appropriately and likely won't be persuasive. - Evidence/arguments: Smart arguments and high quality evidence are the surest ways to win debates. The minimum standard is a claim, a warrant, and an impact. Analytic arguments can rise to this threshold. Evidence that is over-highlighted might not. High evidence quality doesn't substitute for good debating. Good debating can overcome bad evidence quality. If issues are close, I will likely resolve that debate through evidence quality. - Risk: "No risk" is a false phrase, but there may be "negligible risk" that shouldn't be considered by a policymaker. Often the phrase "only a risk" is code for "we don't have any answers to their arguments," and just begs the question of degree of risk. - Dropped/conceded arguments: As a judge, I vote for an argument. If the affirmative drops a disad, I'm not voting for the affirmative dropped the disad. I am voting for the disad. If a team drops an argument, it is not sufficient to inform me that they have conceded an argument. That should be coupled with a minimal explanation of the argument and how it should influence my decision. - Stock issues exist. I'm willing to vote on presumption. It goes to less change. Burden of proof is on the team introducing the argument. - Demeanor issues: Be respectful of your partner, opponent, and judge. Don't clip cards, don't cut cards out of context, etc. Violations of disclosure norms are also lame. Don't have "new aff" if you've read the same affirmative, but have a "different theme" to your advantage. We rely on universities to lend us classroom space - don't steal or vandalize the space. ** Argument-Specific Thoughts - ** - Topicality: Topicality debates can be some of the best debates because they showcase the analytic thinking of debaters. They can also be painful and terrible. You must answer "interpretations" and counter-define words or you will probably lose. It is a voting issue and not a reverse voting issue. "Reasonability" strikes me as arbitrary and most teams do a poor job of overcoming the conventional wisdom that limits are good. In-round abuse is a dumb standard. Your untopical affirmative isn't topical because you've read it all year. - Counterplans: Permutations should be impacted in the 2AC to explain why it makes the counterplan not competitive or why they otherwise matter ("perm do the cp" is not a complete argument; "perm do the cp, it's a way the plan could be implemented" is). If a 2NR goes for a counterplan, I am likely to only evaluate the plan vs. the counterplan unless the 2NR explicitly makes an argument that I can and should evaluate the status quo if the counterplan is not competitive or is not the best policy option. The idea that the affirmative gets to "define the plan" is silly to me if challenged by evidence about how the plan would be implemented. - Theory: Interpretations matter here, too. If you don't meet your own, you will probably lose. That being said, I could probably not tell you the difference between 2 and 3 conditional advocacies. Just defend conditionality. Interpretations, if made, should have some meaning within the debate context. Specific leanings are below: - Disadvantages: Turns the case arguments are important. Negatives should explain how they interact with the case - do they take out solvency or do they solve the case (affects evaluations of "try or die" arguments). If you're affirmative, does the advantage/fiat outweigh or prevent the case turn? Does the case turn the DA? The 1AR needs to answer these questions. Politics disads represent an opportunity cost of doing the plan. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">- Critiques:
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; vertical-align: baseline;">Conditionality: Good.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; vertical-align: baseline;">PICs: Good, but usually better if they're out of something explicitly in the plan. The negative can challenge the effects of the plan, however.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; vertical-align: baseline;">Consult/condition: Context specific and often determined by the debate. Competition challenges are a solid option, but can be answered by various evidentiary arguments from the negative.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; vertical-align: baseline;">Delay: Probably affirmative leaning, but again context specific.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; vertical-align: baseline;">Word PICs: Aff leaning.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; vertical-align: baseline;">Alternate/non-USFG actors: Context specific. I lean towards the idea that a counterplan can disprove the need for the affirmative rather than being an affirmation of the counterplan. For example, the United States chose not to respond to the Rwandan genocide, in part, because the US government believed the UN could/should act.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; vertical-align: baseline;">Affirmatives without a plan, that don't defend some aspect of the topic, or don't defend implementation of a plan or advocacy will have a tough time in front of me. Negatives should be able to debate the merits of accepting an advocacy and its effects. Those consequences are relevant to advocacy endorsement. The idea that the affirmative cannot pick some instance of their advocacy that is associated with the topic befuddles me. Personal stories/experiences, poetry, etc. can be used to justify taking actions.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; vertical-align: baseline;">Critique affirmatives will be evaluated against the impacts the negative advance in the debate. If your plan is good for x reason it will be evaluated against the y reasons its bad. Winners of these type of debates often control the framing of impacts - are utilitarian approaches better than critical approaches, etc.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; vertical-align: baseline;">Critiques on the negative are often won if the affirmative forgets something in the checklist, the alternative functions as a CP, the negative won fairly specific or specifically applied epistemology arguments, or the negative was able to redefine the role of the ballot in some manner. My tendency is to allow the affirmative to leverage their affirmative against the critique. This presumption can be overcome by impact framing arguments like methodology, ontology, etc. first. The "framework" argument that the negative should not get a critique is not particularly persuasive to me. Affirmatives will typically beat the critique on a permutation or on the arguments that the affirmative is true, the alternative doesn't solve, and the affirmative outweighs the critique.