Turner,+John

John Turner
Last Updated - A Long Time Ago

T—I prefer limits over ground arguments. Rather than right to particular ground I would like interpretations argued in terms of the predictability of the research burden/definition. Case lists are important. “Framework” should basically always be T instead. I find most framework arguments unnecessarily restrictive in their interpretation about how we impact/assess a debate whereas a T interpretation can maintain significant freedom for different ways of couching an affirmative while providing predictable limits. For this reason kritiks of T are a hard sell.

Disad/CP—I judged a few of these this year. I wouldn’t mind judging more. I’m unlikely to assess uniqueness/link in absolute terms. Evidence qualifications are important. I probably give defensive arguments more credit than many judges.

K pickiness—I am more open to aff inclusion and textless alternatives than most. I am frustrated by debates where the alternative “vote negative” squares off against permute “do all the parts of the alternative that don’t compete with the plan.” Those are both just abstract descriptions of what any alternative or permutation entails. In depth debate on these issues might be helped by being less tied to a text and more to not being assholes in the c/x in describing an alternative. Pay attention to language/phrasing—pull quotes from evidence and speechs instead of debating author names (Yes, pot-kettle, but still). I prefer Ks that aren’t debated like disads—too much big impact/impact turn and not enough about the aff/alt from either side in most debates I judged. Neg link arguments should include reference to 1AC evidence/tags.

Smart analytical arguments get a lot of weight.

Theory—I am biased in favor of conditionality. I am biased strongly against aff choice. Unlikely to vote on cheap shot claims.

Evidence comparison. In most debates I’ve judged if I hear about the other side’s evidence it’s only in the 2NR/2AR or it’s about how the opponent’s evidence is “terrible.” Granted, many people read terrible evidence, nevertheless, sophisticated evidence comparison should begin early in the debate. I intensely dislike random unqualified internet evidence.

Don’t be evasive in cross-ex. “If you make that argument, we’ll answer it” is probably my least favorite phrase in debate.

I think I’m less grumpy than previous years—still working on that one. I know everyone freaks out at the NDT so I’ll do my best not to add to it. I desperately wish I were funny so I will probably appreciate your humor even if I rarely laugh out-loud. My sense of humor is definitively geeky. My speaker point scale is probably lower than average (only 1 29 this year).