Powers,+Shawn

=JUDGING PHILOSOPHY FOR SHAWN POWERS // NDT, 2007 (DALLAS)=

Shawn Powers Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California 3502 Watt Way Los Angeles, CA 90089 – 0281 E: spowers [at] usc [dot] edu

OVERVIEW:
(1) Years of College Judging Experience: 4 (2) Rounds judged on the Courts topic (2006-2007): 51 (47% Aff, 53% Neg) (3) I have an appreciation for (and reward) a clarity of argument and word: the less clear that an argument and/or evidence is, the less likely I am to follow the precise logic or intuitive leaps required to award said argument significant credibility. a. When extending evidence in the rebuttals, the best way to convince me of the strength or significance of a particular piece of evidence is to explain the warrants provided in the evidence that the can be used to sustain its particular claim(s). Extra speaker points (and wins) are often rewarded to those debaters that take the next step and then compare the reasons in their evidence to the warrants in their opponent’s evidence. (4) I am more well read in policy-related literature and theory compared to critical/cultural studies. This is not to say that I am NOT read in critical/cultural work, or that I don’t think that critical theory can provide persuasive and effective means for winning debates, but rather that the level of explanation required to prove your argument to be correct may be a level above that which is required for, as an example, a topicality argument or court legitimacy disadvantage. This is not a matter of ideology, but cognitive reality – when judging I am more likely to allow for intuitive leaps that make sense given my reading of the literature, and that reading is significantly more extensive when discussing traditional policy arguments.

TRADITIONAL THEORY:
(1) I would suggest reading some sort of advocacy statement (or plan) if you are arguing that I vote affirmative in a given debate. Likewise, I think that plans and statements of advocacy need to be closely related to the resolution’s call for action, and that rules are generally (although not always) productive for the pedagogical value of inter-collegiate debate. (2) For me, one’s ability to win a theoretical argument is strengthened by their ability to (a) describe what is a fair amount of fiat (or ground, appropriate advocacy, etc), why the other team has performed beyond this ‘fair amount,’ and why that excess is (either theoretically or practically) problematic. I usually find theory arguments more persuasive if their distinctions (between what is an appropriate and inappropriate amount of fiat, for instance) are grounded in the specific literature guiding the debate rather than relying exclusively on abstract or self-serving analytical concepts. (3) I have no serious predispositions on the question of whether or not conditional counter-plans (or dispositional counter-plans) are theoretically justifiable or unfair. (4) The negative probably has a right to a counter-plan and “plan-inclusive counter-plans (PICS) bad,” in and of itself, has rarely been a round winning theory argument in front me. That said, arguments about the theoretical issues of particular types of PICS, for instance, conditional PICS, or multi-actor PICs, have been persuasive, particularly on this topic. I would say that I have no significant predispositions for or against either side of these more nuanced PIC arguments. (5) With regard to “voting issues,” or what are sometimes referred to as “cheap shots.” I rarely think that these arguments are worthy of becoming independent voting issues, but still manage to see many debates where they become significant (at least in terms of the amount of time that gets spent discussing them) because one team mishandled or dropped a “independent voting issue.” This is unfortunate and could almost always be remedied with effective new arguments in the late rebuttals. That said I find it important to note the necessity of justifying one’s new arguments in the late rebuttals that address issues that had previously been mishandled. Finally, it is important to note the difference between “cheap shots” and more legitimate theoretical complaints. “Cheap shots,” for me, usually refer to a theory argument that is levied against another team and relies, to the casual observer, on a misrepresentation or exaggeration of what the other team has done to become considered a voting issue. A common example of this comes in debates where a 2NC argues that a “Do Both” permutation on a CP “severs and is thus an independent voting issue,” when in reality the permutation most likely does not advocate the severance of any part of the affirmative plan. I understand that there is middle ground between what I may consider a legitimate theoretical complaint and what I have described as a cheap shot; I try to differentiate the two (when adjudicating debates) by evaluating the reasoning as to whether the arguments (or advocacies) made had a negative strategic impact on the debate itself.

CRITICAL THEORY:
(1) I am often frustrated in critical debates where one team, usually the negative, extends a series of arguments based in critical theory that indict much of the “logic” or ideology of the affirmative’s authors without enough analysis applying the typically dense and macro theoretical concepts to the specific ideological (or otherwise) fallacies deployed in the debate. Critical debates are intellectually interesting and more persuasive when significant work is done applying the critical arguments to the specific warrants read/made within a debate. While this may seem obvious, all too often these arguments are debated at the level of: “legal reasoning is grounded in modernisms’ intellectual history, which allowed for the holocaust, ergo Aff equals Hitler.” That said, I don’t seem to see too many of the more “advanced” critical debates these days, so my characterization may not be a fair or accurate representation of what is usually debated. (2) Most critical debates that I have had the opportunity to adjudicate come down to the relationship between the plan, the alternative and the role of the ballot. I find it difficult to decide critical debates without first understanding whether or not I am evaluating the affirmative’s plan/advocacy compared to the critique’s alternative through the lens of fiat or another method of analysis. I would strongly encourage debaters to address these issues earlier in the debate, and also explain that if they win that their method (i.e. fait) is most appropriate, why that means that they should win the debate (or why the other team’s arguments don’t carry as much weight given a particular method of evaluation).