Bush,+Randall

Randall Bush

Most of my time debating was spent on critical arguments, while leaning more towards the critical than to the performative. Whatever your definition of performance, I think it needs a rigorous defense at some point during the debate; I do not assume its inherent value. I did debate a good variety of arguments, however, and wouldn’t say I’m predisposed to one argument type or another. Context for this is below.

I find that I’m always a better judge when arguments are linked to “big picture” questions of the debate. This may also be a cover for my less than perfect flowing. 1. I called this last year “why framework matters,” but I think it’s really just a question of understanding the LINK implications of your arguments. Side note: I nearly always think better link debating can overcome the “terminal non-unique” style argument when well articulated (and, of course, impacted). I personally have had a hard time understanding why the phrase “non-unique” means that links are irrelevant; I’m sure that both sides of this debate can help me understand. Second, I do better with repetition of meaningful arguments in the debate. If nothing else, the link of your arguments to the big picture claims (ie, argument comparison and resolution) of the debate should be featured in the late rebuttals. This means that I think I do a better job as a judge when I am supplied with a baseline explanation of where you think the debate lies as the debate goes on, with a liberal dose of claims (“even if”) highlighting the exclusive (or inclusive) nature of your argument in comparison to that of the other team’s. Again, this should happen in every speech, not the first and last. Third, because of my commitment to the big picture, I would probably rather make my decision based on what the vast majority of the debate has actually been about than about minute theoretical distinctions brought to bear late in the debate. Doesn’t mean I won’t, but it does mean I’d feel more comfortable thinking about substance. The solution is to make what look like blips more substantive. This also means that if you choose to go for your blippy theory argument, you should take more time in impacting the argument as it might look as applied to other parts of the flow.

This all means that I am more interested in the framing of your arguments—how the link plays out with the rest of the debate—than with what arguments you actually choose to make in front of me.