Spanier,+Joe

Greetings and salutations…or something like that,

I debated for four years at Lakeland High School and debated briefly in college for Northwestern University. Unfortunately, I can neither claim to have judged extensively on this year’s topic nor to know everything about the world. As such, please not only highlight, but also explain critical distinctions in the literature or in specific terms that I may not be familiar with. Without further adieu, my views of debate:

I would like to start this by prefacing that, while I may be the judge, I also enjoy learning. As mentioned above, I do not know much about this topic. Therefore, I would much prefer judging arguments grounded in literature inherent to the aff. I like case debates and highly detailed counterplans, almost too much (Consider the irony that I never ran any). I try not to let this preference extend to bias in a round, but I do find that substantive, well-researched, literature-based arguments tend to be more persuasive than the Referendum counterplan. Despite this, I am more than willing to listen to all sorts of arguments, and will not fault a team for doing so. Even though debate wishes to, and has succeeded in teaching in many respects, the ultimate goal is to win. I do not think that’s a bad thing, but I think it’s something that people are reluctant to admit that it is a primary goal. I never knew that competition was a crime.

Given my view of debate as a game to win, I find judging theory to be a sort of interesting task. While my gut tells me that strict competing interpretations is somewhat unfair, and that offense/defense on topicality is similarly arbitrary, as are conditionality/dispositionality (whatever the hell that means), I believe there’s a limit. I find that practicality arguments, while hard to impact in themselves, tend to provide ways to evaluate “minimal risk” arguments. In this sense, I see “practicality” as a sort of framework different from offense/defense, even though I’m not sure how I would use this in a round in terms of judging. As such, I plan to default to offense/defense/other debate conventions in terms of judging unless told otherwise (via the debaters), but if anything, this is a brief glimpse that I’m more than open, and in fact would love to hear other frameworks for evaluating debate. (While I mean this beyond “ethics first” or other traditional “critical” frameworks, I am similarly open to those). Now that I ended that short rant, allow me to move to more “practical” views.

Topicality – As mentioned, I tend to default affirmative. My gut tells me that given the increasing difficulty of being aff,, being forced to also defend against every possible interpretation of the topic is somewhat unfair. I do believe that the topic has a purpose, and a very important one at that. However, that purpose has morphed from setting parameters of affirmatives to setting parameters of research. Despite the arbitrary nature of “reasonability”, it still tends to make sense. And please, some violations are just dumb. The United States does NOT refer to the United States of Mexico, I’m sorry. I know that there’s an incentive to read as many off-case arguments as possible, but you know it’s not going to get you anywhere, I know it’s not going to get you anywhere, so please just spare us. If it has strategic utility, or you consider it a legitimate argument, go for it. But please, be reasonable.

Theory – Similar to topicality, I tend to default defensively, in this case often being negative. (I tend to lean aff in the case of intrinsic perms and whatnot). As with topicality though, there is a limit. I think some counterplans are stupid. I think that arbitrary process counterplans are probably bad for debate, but I do value the flow more than my own personal beliefs. The most important thing to win on theory is the impact. Should I reject the team? I think in some cases there are legitimate reasons for rejecting the team. In the case of incredibly absurd counterplans, I do believe they’re bad practice that detract from the enjoyment of this game we call debate, but I need to hear that articulated. Unfortunately, I’m not comfortable voting on a dropped “Reject the team, not the argument”. There needs to be substance. Similarly, if you say reject the argument, not the team, and the other team can provide a solid explanation of why it’s truly damaging to debate, I will evaluate it (But do not do this at every instance possible. For instance, multiple perms bad when they made 2 perms is probably not worthy of a round-loss. If you want to try it, I’ll find it interesting, and may even give you the win, but I probably won’t agree with you).

Kritiks – I’ve read some of the literature. Not all of it. Not most of it. I can understand it in debate argument terms (the dumbed down, 3 sentence explanation). I may not be able to understand the cards without a little help (By that, I mean apply the cards to the scenario at hand. Not just repeating “zero point of the holocaust”). I tend to find a framework necessary, only because I don’t know how to weigh alternatives vs. the plan. I find framework to be a critical portion of kritik debates, as long as they’re well-impacted. I’m more likely to default to a well-impacted but closely lost framework than to a closely won, but unimpacted one – simply because I know what I’m supposed to do. I think that framework is not necessarily the same as impact calculus, and that; “We have a nuclear war scenario” doesn’t necessarily answer framework arguments – assuming they’re well-articulated. I also think an explanation of the alternative, couched in both your framework and the aff’s framework, and how I should view the alt in both worlds, is extremely helpful. The same holds true for permutations.

Performance – I’ve yet to hear a story that I find both logical and meaningful. I can try to judge these rounds objectively, but I may fail. It is possible to win that these are good; but to do so still requires argumentation. That doesn’t need to come in the form of line-by-line, spewing cards, and the like, but it does need to happen. Too often, I’ve seen or debated against performance teams that feel their performance trumps carded arguments because it’s performance. I do not necessarily believe that one trumps the other, but I do think that some sort of interaction needs to occur.

Counterplans – I like good ones. I hate bad ones. I like case-specific and plan-specific ones (By that, I mean plan wording/plan action ones, not USFG ones). I find process counterplans somewhat dumb, only because I don’t think the aff has to defend a certain process (unless they specified before the counterplan is read). I think the aff has the right to be silent on issues such as how many justices should vote yes in a court case. I think that affs answer too many questions too specifically. If the aff does answer these questions in a way that makes a “stupid” counterplan competitive, I support running it. As I’ve said, this is a game. Do what you can do win. But I don’t think that before you earn your gold-star process counterplan, the aff has to roll over and bite the link. Use cross-ex effectively and I’ll support the dumbest counterplans you can come up with.

Disads – Is there much to say? I like them. They’re a core part of debate. I like case-specific ones. I’m fine with generic ones – but I still think that winning a link based on specifics of cross-ex, evidence quotes, other evidence, or something similar is extremely important. I also like impact calculus, as long as goes beyond “end of the world, boom”. Comparative impact calculus >>>>>> impact calculus. Don’t forget probability analaysis. We all know that nuclear war isn’t coming in the next 5 minutes, and you’re not going to convince me that it is. Just convince me that it’s more likely than their scenarios and more important.