Risen,+Michael

Montgomery Bell Academy
School Strikes = Isidore Newman School CXphilosophy = A few notes at the top: 1. I firmly believe in the difference between a constructive and a rebuttal. I find spewing through a prewritten overview at the top of a 2AR to be a practice deleterious to a good rebuttal. For me, the activity (in particular the final two rebuttals) is fundamentally persuasive-we really aren't that far from individual events like extemp in that respect. Screaming at me, over emphasizing the technical elements of the flow, and not explaining your story are good ways to lose my ballot. 2. The team that wins the debate will be the one that explains the "story" the best. That is, whichever team tells the persuasive story will win. What's persuasive? Clear arguments, well conceived strategy, specificity, good rebuttal choices, manners, good perspective of the round, and good impact comparison. 3. When you do something that is rude or otherwise offensive to me during the round, your speaks will reflect this. I believe in being polite around relative strangers, refraining from profanity, and treating your opponent and your partner with respect. The specifics Topicality: it always comes down to abuse with me: in round or out of round (your choice!). This usually comes from a limits debate (who sets the best one) and that usually comes from a clear interpretaion. I'd say, overall, I'm not particularly inclined to vote on T unless the aff is clearly outside the topic. T is always a voting issue, never a reverse one. Additionally, T always comes first because it is a gateway discussion. Everything comes down to the resolution. I view it as a negative burden to prove the aff not topical. Theory: for me, this also comes down to abuse (however one articulates that abuse). There's a larger burden for me to vote on a theory argument and the abuse needs to be clearly quantifiable. I'm more inclined towards the argument that the position should be jettisoned from the round. Overall, I am not inclined to pull the trigger on theory. Critique: for me, the critique exists in the pre-fiat, non-causal world. I don't find the argument that something bad (oppression, genocide, war, coercion, etc.) occurs as a result of plan. This is true for me because we don't require critiques to have uniqueness, links, internal links and impacts as we do a DA. Therefore, if the position is to be persuasive, the neg must prove that the assumption they point to is intrinsic to the aff in some way. Next, the neg should build a genealogy/ archeology demonstrating how the use of that assumption in public policy has led to negative results (racist policies resulted in oppression, violence, etc.) This is not to say that the aff will cause these things, but that the aff operates on an assumption that perpetuates a historically flawed system, idea, framework, etc. The intrinsicness of this assumption to the aff and the credibility of the empirical arguments about the implication dictate my decision. The neg could make a post fiat impact with the critique, but that would necessitate a causal discussion (links, uniqueness, etc). As is apparent, I'm not so sure that the "alternative" provides the uniqueness; at that level, the perm takes away the power of the critique. Therefore, the best critique debate for me discusses the intrinsicness of the aff assumption and advocates the rejection of the aff on empirical grounds (we've tried policies like this before and look what they've done!). On the alternative, you don' t need one in front of me, and maybe it's just better not to have one. Important note: I think that critiques as an IDEA are great for the activity, but they are flawed structurally. I think that the "wrong forum" arguments 2ACs made 10 years ago are proving to be true. When I hear the phrase "next off, statism" my stomach turns. I want to vote aff so bad I can't stand it. Unfortunately, affs often allow the neg to get away with all of the tricks in the book and I have to vote neg. Also, the neg must defend some kind of framework. If you're making a critical argument, I assume you're using a postmodern framework. Clarify if you're doing otherwise. The rest 1. I'm not so into the offense/ defense distinction. If plan spends no money and the neg runs spending, the no link argument goes pretty far with me. Good defensive arguments can overwhelm a DA or an adv. That's hard to do but, spending lots of 2AR time covering the DA link could make the DA go away. I see DAs and advs as causal chains so, ultimately, I evaluate the logic of that chain-- if the aff can break that chain, the whole things goes away. 2. I'm a policy maker in search of the best policy option. The neg needs to lay out why the aff isn't the best choice and the aff why they're the best. For me, it's that simple. The 2NR is about reasons to reject a policy-those arguments are best when they're persuasive and well explained. I am always impressed with a good story that shows thought and development. The 2AR needs to refute those arguments and explain the necessity of change. The constructives are about laying out arguments and the rebuttals are about tying them up.