Coulter,+Nathan

Intro

To resolve or not to resolve - that is the question!

My paradigm (hereafter, "The Paradigm"), is straightforward: At the end of the round, I vote either to affirm or not to affirm the resolution. A vote to affirm the resolution is a vote for the affirmative team, and a vote not to affirm is a vote for the negative team.

Policy debate resolutions have always been worded such that they express a general principle, i.e., a concurrent resolution which conveys the sentiment of the legislators, rather than a bill which, when signed, becomes law. In that light, the affirmative plan becomes a case study which, if defendable, may justify affirming the resolution, but it is the resolution which is voted either up or down, not the individual plan. If the judge is persuaded to vote in favor of the resolution, REGARDLESS of which team during the round did the persuading, the affirmative side has won the debate, and vice versa.

The implications of The Paradigm are far-ranging, as reflected in the comments below. In particular, it leaves open the possibility that the proponents of the resolution might support it by means other than presenting a plan justifying it, and opponents of the resolution likewise have other avenues of defeating it, perhaps by arguing that regardless of which plan is presented, other consequences of affirming the resolution are too great, or that other a-priori issues block its consideration.

A judge represents a rational public, willing to hear out the arguments for and against the resolution, and to be persuaded one way or the other. Persuasion is accomplished not just by technical superiority of the arguments presented, but by some magical combination of logical soundness, oratory, and statesmanship. A policy speech is a performance, and the performer may use all the devices of rhetoric (the lost art of the fourth R), to persuade the judge. The skillful application of irony, humor, and emotion by means of wit, drama, and prose greatly enhance the status of the performer and their arguments. A presentation style that conveys confident easy command of the issues enhances the speaker's position, whereas a frantic, emotionally frought appeal to the cynial audience impunes it.

Debate jargon does not belong in the actual speeches given during a debate. It jerks the audience away from the subject at hand and into a surreal metaverse. Instead of "topicality", one could say "not related to the resolution". Instead "solvency", one could say, "the plan does not accomplish its stated objective." Instead of, "vote negative", one could say "vote not to affirm the resolution". Using descriptive statements rather than academic labels keeps it real.

Big points go to the teams with superior rhetorical skills, particularly when they cause the opponent to fall upon their own sword.

Regarding speed, it's a great pleasure to listen to a lightning-fast yet crystal-clear speech, but more often than not, a speaker attempting a rapid delivery is not capable of it, and failure to execute is a world-class mistake that carries a heavy penalty. Clarity must not be sacrificed. Any evidence read unintelligibly will be discarded.

Topicality

In accordance with The Paradigm, the issue of topicality in and of itself, is not a voting issue. If one team or the other is developing an argument not related to the topic, the natural outcome is that their arguments will have no impact on the judge's decision regarding the resolution. If an affirmative team presents a non-topical case, a winning opposing strategy might be to drive home the point that the judge has been left with no justification to affirm the resolution. The burden of proof, after all, is upon the affirmative.

Counterplans

The Paradign comes into heavy play here. Ultimately, the judge is voting either to affirm the resolution or not. If the team opposing the resolution presents a counterplan in support of the resolution, and persuades the judge of its virtue, thus justifying the resolution, the judge should then vote IN FAVOUR OF THE AFFIRMATIVE. A counterplan, then, is a scenario that illustrates reasons not to affirm the resolution.

This includes counterplans that augment affirmative plans with actions like consulting with allies and building consensus for the plan. The opponent of the resolution, however, could concede the potential advantages of the proponent's plan, but convince the listener that plan of action is dubious and warrants study, i.e., that it is unknown that the plan, as proposed, would realize those advantages.

Is there room for a topical counterplan that unjustifies the resolution? Yes. It could be presented as an undersirable plan is inevitable given the resolution, and whose disadvantes are significant enough to warant rejecting the resolution.

Advantages/Disadvantages

Tenuous links and nebulous thresholds are highly suspect. The burden of proof falls upon the team presenting the disadvantage, and an egregiously squirrely disadvantage can do great harm to a team's overall credibility. This is even more true of advantages to prepared affirmative case.

Kritik

The Paradigm leaves a great deal of room on both sides for kritik. Yes, affirmative can run kritik, too!

The Grand Prize

A team may choose to attempt to convince the me to change my paradigm. Here be dragons, but a successful argument to this effect would likely win the round.