Vecera,+Vincent

Vincent Vecera

I joined debate in 2002 while an undergrad at Reed and started judging and coaching in 2004. I have a PhD and MA from Minnesota, both in political science. I love debate.

I generally view debate as a game. Unless you can convince me not to, I lexically order my decision as follows: discourse kritik, resolution kritik, topicality, criteria, case kritik, case.

Kritiks are legitimate arguments. This includes kritik of the language used in round, the language of the resolution, and the substance of a case, though these three kinds of kritiks are all assessed differently. The most important factor to making a kritik work is connecting the fact of the kritik to the harm. I am open to performative arguments if and only if you are extremely talented at it. Let me be clear; if you are conducting a performance, you have to commit completely and you have to convince me, in earnest, that I can do more with my ballot than judge a debate.

Topicality is a legitimate argument on both offense and defense and is always a voting issue on jurisdiction. I tend to take something close to a "framer's intent" view of topicality in parli. Affirmative is obliged to offer a plan consistent with the spirit of the resolution and that can be debated fairly by an informed opposition. Opposition is obliged to negate the opposition argument or provide a superior reason to vote against the government. Opposition is also obliged not to offer a topical counter-plan, that is, a counter-plan that would affirm the resolution.

I have an instinct about the appropriate criterion prior to deciding on case. Absent discussion of criterion, I will default to my own instinct rather than assuming, as some judges do, cost-benefit (utilitarian) analysis. Often I see a team with a potentially winning argument fail to make the necessary case for the appropriate criterion. I think the basic question of whether to rely on cost-benefit analysis or moral prohibitions is often really important.

Case is key. Contradictions are really important to me, as are unfounded assumptions. I do not usually care about dropped arguments. I will only vote on good arguments. I will not vote for a ridiculous argument just because it wasn't addressed.

I will not vote for plans that cannot be implemented. I will note vote for plans predicated on an abuse of fiat. A clever debater can avoid fiat abuse by framing arguments carefully. Once a counter-plan has been offered, topicality can no longer be a voter because the counter-plan redefines the resolution on the opposition grounds, however aff/gov can argue topicality against a counter-plan that is abusive. Examples of counter-plan abuse include plan-inclusive counter-plans and topicality, that is, a counter-plan cannot affirm the resolution. A counter-plan that affirms the resolution is topical and thus contradictory to the opposition position.

I do not like name shouting, excessive spreading, heckling, or sexism. I am extremely casual and expect you to be as well. My politics run moderately left of center for the most part, but I am open to arguments of all philosophical kinds. My particular interests are democratic theory, judicial power, and the history of political economy. I love to hear arguments from history and psychology.

While I will write down my reason for decision, I give my full critique in round because I want to actually talk to you and you're probably not going to be able to read my writing anyway. I wish all debate were parli debate.