Kaplinger,+Brian

Debated 4 years for Millard South (Omaha) No College Debate

Did some minor card cutting/coaching for Millard South for 3 years. I consider myself acquainted, even comfortable, with National Circuit debate, though the vast majority of my experience is with regional Midwest tournaments (Nebraska, Kansas, South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Illinois). This will be my eighth year judging policy debate regularly.

I am a student by profession (though trained as an engineer), so while I will be down with listening to the craziest thing you can come up with, I also have a weakness for arguments that come across as "true" (don't get discouraged if I am chuckling at your argument). I feel debate is predominantly an educational activity, and I usually find myself defaulting to paradigms that are inclusive of both sides of the debate. I feel that there should be respect for the activity, that debaters should treat each other, their coaches, their judges, and the arguments with respect. That said, there are serious things that are wrong with this activity. Just because I can point to debate as a substantial (positive) influence in my life does not mean that it functions the same way everywhere in this nation, or that I can ignore the cancers that have cropped up and threaten to strangle the good out of this game. Argue your own way, I will listen - In fact, if you carefully warrant why your way of viewing debate should be accepted... I will even be sympathetic (If you are lying to win the round, hope it's the last time you run that argument in front of me).
 * General Advice:**

Run whatever you want, and explain why and how I should evaluate it. You will have better luck running a few, very well explained positions or advantages, with well articulated stories to answer theory, than you will with spreading the other team (on either several positions or a single one) and running your generic blocks on theory/framework/topicality. That said, your strategy is up to you, just make sure I follow it. Sometimes, the other team decides how the debate is going to go down, and all you can do is be better at it than they are (even if generic answers are all you have prepared).
 * Short Version:**

Debate theory is an area where I feel the art has died. Often, this results in blips read at the fastest speed possible - unwarranted, not impacted, and poorly explained. I do not err negative on theory. If for some reason you convince me the plan/aff/1AC speech is a *bad idea*, you just might win on presumption. Specific abuse scenario? Go for it. In depth analysis into the style of debate presented and how things should be done? Love it, but this may be better argued as a criticism. Winning that the CP or the Perm, etc. is illegitimate will probably not win you the round, but it might defeat the argument. To me, theory and framework are more a part of an overarching strategy than a round winner, but feel free to persuade me otherwise.
 * Theory:**

You will find it hard to win the round on theory alone, and this includes the theoretical aspects to framework. As a specific example, I can remember voting the KCC project down several times when they were winning that their style of debate was best. It still didn't give a particular reason to vote, and those particular teams did not engage the arguments of the other team. Unless you are clearly winning other arguments, it is unlikely that you will simply frame your opponents arguments out of the round. They don't disappear. Discursively, at least, they are present throughout the round (they were said and recorded, you can't simply ignore them). For that same reason, a dropped argument is not necessarily a true argument. You have to continue to persuade, especially since both teams will cut down what particular points they cover in the line-by-line as we go on. Unless both teams are running the cleanest line-by-line debate possible, be prepared for answers to be grouped or cross-flowed in my decision-making process. I often feel that is what the speaker is asking me to do, as they attempt to refine the key issues of the debate. Something you feel is dropped may not be truly conceded. Your flow and mine might not match, but mine is probably fairly close to that of your opponents (it is common that the winner and the loser don't exactly agree on what happened), so arguing after the round is not going to do much besides lower my opinion of you (you are welcome to feel whatever you want about me).
 * Framework**:

I find the meaning behind the phrase "reject the argument, not the team" to be persuasive. That said, a particular abuse story is usually necessary to win the T debate. While I will be the first to prepare a squad to run a questionably topical aff, or one without a specific plan text, I do feel some sort of procedural hurdle is present. I may be persuaded to vote on T (and I find myself doing it more often on some resolutions), especially if the aff cannot justify why they affirm the resolution (in whatever form they choose to do so). Leave your negative positions on the negative if they are not specific to the resolution (they should be). The reason the topic changes is to encourage different types of debate on different issues. That said, a critique of the commonly held notions of topicality is persuasive to me. Who is the negative team to decide what is argued and what cannot be discussed? Additionally, for cases normally considered topical the negative probably has a definition in their file that includes the case at hand. Be prepared to defend your interpretation of the resolution as a whole, particularly if you are doing so with the intent of limiting out the speech of the other team. For this reason, I find "reasonability" arguments hold a lot of weight.
 * Topicality:**

I do not find negation theory very persuasive, but feel free to give good reasons why I should. DAs are generally accepted (even encouraged) in my debate paradigm, but be aware of predictive, discursive, or theoretical conflicts with other positions. Also, if your politics debate relies on a tricky internal link scenario, a careful explanation is necessary - and warrants are particularly important in both evidence and analysis. Counterplans are good, though I will usually err aff on what I consider to be a legitimate alternative advocacy. Neither the resolution nor most plans carefully explain the process of normal means or the timeframe of the implementation. Therefore, I often find permutations convincing unless the theoretical objections are particularly well defined. Be prepared with specific counter-evidence and disadvantages to the perm. For the same reason I usually err aff on allowing the perm to be weighed (not necessarily won), I will usually err neg on any offense you can stick to the perm. This also applies (even more importantly) to the criticism debate, below.
 * Disadvantages/Counterplans:**

I have long considered myself a critical debater, coach, and judge. I find myself having fairly high thresholds for what I expect out of a good K debate. If you do not know your position well enough, you might be in trouble. I think this is an area of substantial influence in developing critical thinking skills, so you are unlikely to get me to simply ignore the critical debate because it is outside of what you feel comfortable debating (see framework, above). Much of what happens in other types of positions can be drawn from very old critical interpretations (the idea of a national structure, or politics working like a horse-trading game) and even newer thoughts and paradigm shifts (convincing people that environmental impacts matter is a subject of much philosophical thought in the past half century). In short, much of what is now considered traditional policy debate is centered around what might have been considered "criticisms" centuries ago. Political thought is ever-changing, and engaging the assumptions and discourse that we make is important. That said, repeating what your specific "K author" has to say does not convince me that the argument has merit (yes, even if they don't answer your 100 specific points out of your author's book). Consensus is often as important as a single voice, and by the same token that I don't want any single voice silenced, I will refuse to silence a general consensus. Prove to me why either is correct, applicable to the debate at hand, and win the round using it. If I decide to adopt a framework, and the aff explains how they can function in that framework, you might still lose unless your "rejection" advocacy is particularly compelling (implicitly here, I am more likely to buy a good alternative debate).
 * Criticisms:**

I am not very likely to engage in what is traditionally deemed "impact calculus". The most important points of the round often have nebulous impact/implications that are tough to weigh - this is better done in round than by the judge afterward. I think there are good reasons why body counts are a meaningless way of measuring the impacts of an action. Similarly, anyone who has ever worked for the federal government understands that there is no better way to persuade a boss or a funding agency than a rough guess at some hard numbers - so body counts have their place (probably forever) in the way that debate educates students, and need to be specifically indicted if you want to weigh the round in another fashion. Low risk scenarios are something I am particularly interested in for personal research, so I understand why things must be done now to put options in place for those scenarios. That said, I tend to be pragmatic about acting in the face of short-term, higher-risk impacts, even if the magnitude is lower. At one point in time, my job was to use statistics to quantify risks of huge numbers of people dying, so we may not necessarily be on the same page with your "calculus." It is a cold way of assessing impacts, I agree, which is why I can be persuaded that the numbers do not particularly matter in many cases. Bring numbers to bear at your own risk.
 * Impact Calculus:**