Abbott,+Blake

Blake Abbott -

First and foremost, I enjoy debate, no matter what debate is involved. I think that debate is a wonderful game that can include many different styles and techniques. All of them should be welcome within the forum we’ve created. Whether it wins the ballot, however, is another story entirely. While I personally enjoy some arguments over others, I will do my best to leave those preferences out of my judging paradigm. In other words, if both teams debate the plan in a “traditional fiat” sense, I’m more than happy to go that route. If, however, the teams want to engage in so-called “non-traditional” debate, then I am just as happy to utilize “alternative” ways to evaluate the round. I'm more of a fan of good strategy than I am of a particular brand of argumentation. Ultimately, it’s your round. Have fun, and feel free to run what you want. I do ask, however, that you tell me where to vote and why. If this isn’t done at all, I may be forced to fall back to my defaults, so for educational benefit, here they are:

Topicality — The aff has to be topical (whether there is a plan or not). What that means, however, can be debatable. If you view the resolution differently, explain your interpretation of the resolution and why it's good. If you want to kritik the rez on the aff, then do so, but if you’re being called out on T, explain why and how this kritik of the rez either should be seen as topical or is best for debate. I am persuaded by reasonability in the absence of compelling arguments to the contrary. I think the best standard for competing T interpretations is which one is better for debate. If given no other standard for evaluation, I’ll default to ground. Oh, and if you’re going for T in the 2nr, go for it only, please. Don’t worry about the other stuff.

Disads — I prefer specific claims on disadvantages to overarching, overwhelmingly non-unique ones. If the link is simply “overruling supreme court cases will hurt Bush's capital,” then I’m not very willing to give you a lot on the link. If, however, you can either read evidence or tell a good story about how the specific case that the aff overrules would hurt bush’s capital (or whatever the link is), then you get much more credit. Note: you don’t have to have a card on it for the claim to make sense. If your link or uniqueness claim is intuitive, I can just as easily give that weight as I could to specific cards that take into account the aff’s actions. And please, for the love of all that is good, DO IMPACT WORK!! I’m not playing here, if you just say, “extend the impact,” I will not be very happy with you. You gots to spend time explaining the impact and doing some impact comparison, no matter what you're going for. I have voted on impact calculus alone in so many rounds, it’s not even funny. I also increase speaker points for those who do good impact analysis.

Counterplans — I like counterplans. I’m a bigger fan of well thought out, specific CPs, but if you feel like running XO or your agent CP, that’s fine. With a generic CP, tailor your analysis to the aff. Generally, unless a big to-do is made about it on theory, I will usually default neg on dispo/conditionality theory. I think I'm a little sympathetic to the aff on PICs, but that depends on the CP in the round. "Do the plan minus a penny" counterplans are not good for debate. I'm generally not a fan of consult CPs, and I think Ross Smith has successfully convinced me that international fiat isn't cool either. Keep in mind, however, that these are my defaults. They don't mean that you can't win my ballot on a CP I don't like.

K’s — Kritiks are fun stuff generally, but the biggest problem is that people are way too generic. Don’t just say, “State bad, juh-udge.” If you’re gonna ramble on about the system, then you need to explain in good detail how they are willing participants in that system or active supporters of the evil you kritik. You should be as specific to the aff as possible. Don’t just read yet another Zizek card and expect that to explain everything. Also, if the impact is on a different level than the aff’s “post-fiat” case impax, then you gotta do the work to compare the two. You’ve gotta give me more to weigh than biopower vs. nuclear war. Give me solid explanation of why your K-ish impact should be weighed as more significant than the case’s attempt to stop a war or whatever. If your impax include turning the case, then say so, but also win your external impact. For me, good 2ac offense against the K (usually something about how either the plan action or advocacy of the plan is the best way to solve for what they’re kritiking) can go a long way.

K aff's - I like them. I ran kritikal aff's, and I tend to find them among the more interesting and creative trends in debate. Just don't rely on tired, rehashed phrases like in K's on the neg. And don't shy away from the topic. I think in many ways its possible to advocate topical action in ways that feed your kritik. Also, see my above stuff about T.

Non-traditional debate — I kinda feel that the divide between so-called “traditional” debate and the “non-traditional” variety is a false one. Despite this view, there are many on both sides who will defend their style of debate as long as it takes. I’m sure there will be many rounds where it’s a "clash of civilizations," so to speak. The question is how to resolve the two. Well, that’s a job for those debating. You need to explain to me why I should prefer your style of the debate or why in this round your arguments should be preferred. If it’s for community activism, then feel free to make your case. I have a lot of respect for schools that continue to push the envelope in our activity. If you are defending traditional debate, do so, but don’t just make the tired old, “they’re destroying the activity” claims. You can do better than that. If you want to argue framework, that’s fine. I should say, though, that I am skeptical of this recent “aff gets to pick the framework” trend that many “policy” teams have been running. I think you should defend your affirmative, no matter what that is. I’m not saying that I won’t vote for it in a particular round if it’s defended well (I will have a higher standard for this particular argument). What I am saying is don’t expect me to buy that argument just because you made it.

I hate reading evidence after the round, and I will do what I can to decide the debate without having to do so. Please don't tell me to read your card after the round. Please do explain the evidence in the round. If I call for a card (unless it's to get a cite), it means that either you're not explaining or there's too much uncertainty, neither of which is good for either team. If I have to read the evidence, then you have less sway over whether you win the debate than you would if you explain your evidence. Basically, explain your evidence, and compare it to the other team's evidence. Explain the warrants (or lack thereof) in both, and you get more credibility.

Flowing — A good deal of teams are moving away from the flow, and some ask the judge to do so at very odd points in the round. I will say that my default is to flow (here I will fall back on the standard “my memory sucks” reason). If, however, you don’t want me to flow the round, please ask me before the round starts. If the other team is fine with it, I will be more than happy to forgo flowing for that debate.

For the record, I'm persuaded to join Charles Olney's "movement," so I'll be willing to follow alternate use time for debates I judge if you want it in your round with me. Just ask before the round starts.

All in all, have fun. It’s your debate. For neg’s, just think for a few minutes about how what you’re reading applies directly to the plan, and argue from there. For aff’s, don’t be afraid of your aff. I’ve seen many aff teams try to answer the neg’s arguments with totally new stuff, practically abandoning the 9 minutes of the 1ac. Don’t do that! Use the 1ac to your advantage. You know its tricks. Use them. I hope all this makes sense. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me before the round.