Warden,+John

Northwestern '09, Chattahoochee '05
Some big picture things:

1. Comparative impact calculus is critical. This is obvious for disads, but also really important for theory and topicality arguments.

2. Evidence comparison is really important, particularly in evaluating solvency deficits for counterplans. It's obviously a lot easier if you cut good cards written by qualified people.

3. “The real measure of your speed is the number of arguments that the judge requires your opponent to answer” - RKS

Below are my more specific thoughts about debate (in no particular order). I will always vote for the team I think won, not based on my own argument preferences. Your job is to persuade a judge, so adapt as you will, but I generally think your best chance to win is going for what you’re best at.

1. Mechanisms are the most important for topicality. The words and phrases in the resolution impose requirements on what the aff must do, rather than set parameters for everything they can do. Predictable neg ground, and not a small list of potential affs, is what makes a topic manageable.

2. It's easy to lose on T if you don't counter-define words.

3. I am usually more persuaded by impacts to theory arguments that go beyond “debate would be unfair.” "Strat skew" and "time suck" are meaningless phrases that should be retired from debate.

4. Counter-interpretations on theory, both aff and neg, are only persuasive if they are logically coherent. For example, “C/I we get two cp’s and one k and the second cp is dispo” isn’t going to do much.

5. I’m becoming more and more convinced that counterplans should use the actor of the plan.

6. Calling something a voting issue doesn’t make it one. It’s difficult for me to think some theory arguments could ever be voting issues.

7. I generally think conditionality is logical and good but am starting to see more of the other side, especially with tons of conditional arguments and bad neg answers.

8. Focus on what the role of the ballot or framework should be, not what it is. Specific cards about the need to debate the details of policy proposals are better than generic cards that say switch-side debate and policy education are good.

9. I generally think "no value to life" is a meaningless phrase. It's among my least favorite arguments.

10. It’s better to take advantage of “abusive” practices by capitalizing with offensive argument than fairness voting issues--vague alternatives are bad because they’re ineffective, permutations are justified, etc.

11. Counterplans should be functionally competitive based on a difference in text. There’s a difference between the mandates of the plan and the likely outcomes. Affs who can explain this will do well against questionably competitive counterplans, and negs should keep this in mind when debating permutations. Neg teams sometimes assume that words like all or entire are in the plan when they’re not. If the plan says USFG that does not necessarily commit it to the entire USFG. If the counterplan meets these requirements, winning that it is unfair because it “stole part of the plan” is unlikely.

12. I think that counterplans that compete based on opportunity costs are both relevant and legitimate. The aff must defend an increase in democracy assistance. Committing to an increase forgoes the possibility of using additional aid as leverage. That being said, many of these counterplans can be easily defeated by--among other things--logical, legitimate permutations (request, consult on another issue, etc.).

13. I think the 1ar is a constructive. This might be a slight exaggeration, but not by much.

14. The aff should read a topical plan. Probably in the 1ac...