Benedict,+Brendan

Brendan Benedict - Updated 11/20/12 I debated 4 years at Boston College

(Scroll down for the cliff notes version)


 * Debate is about advocacy** - When we hear framework interpretations or theoretical violations we hear some appeal to education and debate's portable skills, but we lose sight that debate is not just an educational activity, it is more importantly an advocacy activity. There is something valuable about having to research one position and defend it for the entirety of the debate. What this means for the round: Case vs. disad/counterplan throw downs or classic one-off K debates are my favorite debates to watch. I am loathe to sit through a debate where the neg reads 2 counterplans, a dumb K, and a politics disad all in unison with some refrain about negation theory and contradictions good.


 * Tech doesn't always beat truth** - All the cool kids like to throw in a line about how tech beats truth, but there are some arguments that are so unbelievable/prima facie not true that even a poor response or concession by the other team doesn't result in a risk of 100%. For example, the threshold for convincing me that death is bad or that nuclear weapons use will kill a significant amount of people, etc. is extremely low even if the opposing team is all blocked out on wipe out. Tech mostly beats truth - another example, if you win a ME war impact but don't argue that it would spill over to turn an Indo/Pak war impact, I can't just make the turns case argument for you. But if all the affirmative says is "neg vote no" without explanation and the block drops it, I am still reluctant to clock in for the affirmative on that argument alone.


 * Spin doesn't always beat evidence** - A point related to the above note. There exist some crafty 2ARs who will spin some persuasive stories about their case solvency or their link turns on politics but whose evidence on these points will be exceptionally terrible. If one team's evidence is far superior to the other team's evidence, the debate will most likely go in the favor of superior evidence, barring some catastrophic meltdowns of a speech. But superior analysis will always beat out terrible evidence. The goal: excellent evidence and stellar analysis. The better speakers get higher speaker points, the better debaters (a distinction that includes quality of research) win debates.


 * A link doesn't always trump uniqueness** - More likely than not I will determine that the direction of the link is much more important than the relative chance of an event occurring in the status quo, but that doesn't mean that uniqueness can't still win out. If politics will not pass now with 65 votes against in the Senate, that the affirmative increases it to 85 against is neither beneficial nor detrimental to passage.


 * Try or die** - Code for "we don't solve anything but are winning uniqueness." I am an excellent judge for the negative on questions of affirmative solvency - I am happy to vote neg on presumption alone, but that means that the quality of no solvency evidence and execution must be superb.


 * Paperless debate is bad for flowing** - Students now just read the speech document instead of listening to the speech. Please flow the speech and not the document.


 * Judge intervention is inevitable** - There may be "tabula rasa" judges or those who "will vote on anything," but that doesn't mean they aren't intervening in the round. Every comparison and decision a judge makes is intervention. Michael Seidman, former clerk to Thurgood Marshall, sums up my thoughts on judge intervention by way of analogy:

"How could someone ... possibly believe that judging in hard cases involves no more than applying the law to the facts? First year law students realize within a month that many areas of the law are open textured and indeterminate - that the legal material frequently (actually, I would say always) must be supplemented by //contestable presuppositions, empirical assumptions, and moral judgments//. To claim otherwise...is to claim that whenever judges disagree among themselves, someone is either a fool or acting in bad faith."

1) Is the topical plan preferable to the status quo or a competitive option? 2) Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. I defer to reasonability - T is a yes/no question 3) Conditionality is bad - especially if the number of options read is greater than 1, or if the option advanced contradicts the thesis of a disadvantage. 4) I will not kick the counterplan in the 2nr unless the negative instructs me to do so 5) The only voting issues are topicality and conditionality, everything else is a reason to reject the argument or allow other dubious arguments. 6) I will not vote on ASPEC unless it's asked in the CX of the 1AC and the aff doesn't answer. 7) Look at me -- I will nod/shake my head or laugh in accordance with arguments. This is for your benefit. 8) Paperless debate: if there are cards you don't get to in your speech document, I expect you to jump the other team a version that includes only the cards read, with the appropriate marks, before cross-ex begins. Be ready to have a viewing computer to show me (and the other team) your evidence. 9) I am an excellent judge for politics. 10) Since I assume you work hard, I will also work hard to judge you. Good luck!
 * CLIFF NOTES****