Atcheson,+Eric

The Gospel of Debate According to Eric Atcheson In the beginning was the resolution, and the resolution was with debate, and the resolution was debate. All debates came into the world with the resolution. Unless the resolution really sucked. Really, do whatever you want, just be ready to defend it…

My philosophy is on the lengthy side (I figure more information is better than less), but if you read nothing else in my dogmatic, misguidedly self-righteous manifesto, please read this: Nine times out of ten, you are better off playing to your strengths and doing what you do well rather than trying to cater to my frankly whimsical preferences. I try to do what I am told as a judge, which does wonders for my self-esteem, but by the same token, if you feel you cannot adapt to me, please feel free to low-pref/strike me. My fragile self-esteem will recover, I promise.

My background: I graduated in May of 2008 with a B.A. in religious studies from Lewis & Clark College in Portland, OR, where I competed in NPDA debate for four years, with occasional informal ventures into BP and NDT/CEDA debate. I was the Director of Forensics at Lake Oswego High School in Lake Oswego, OR, from 2006-2008, and I started judging high school policy, parli, and L/D rounds for Lakeridge High School in 2005. Prior to that, I did three years of policy debate in high school. I am now a graduate student at the Pacific School of Religion and the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, CA. I have been working with the forensics program at City College of San Francisco since September of 2008.

How I view rounds: If no weighing mechanism is given, I default to net benefits, meaning whichever team does the better job of weighing out the round in terms of risk, magnitude, and timeframe (not necessarily in that order) will probably win my ballot. While the Opp should have offense somewhere on the flow (D/As, Ks, case turns, whatever), I am NOT a member of the “cult of offense” when it comes to individual arguments. I do believe that there is such a thing as terminal defense, and I do believe that it is sadly underutilized in NPDA debate. Don’t be afraid to go for it in front of me; I think strong defense is more compelling than weak offense.

Topicality: Articulated abuse is the easiest way to get me to vote on T but is by no means the only way. I have voted on competing interpretations more often than I ever thought I would, and while I have no idea what potential abuse is, I will vote on it if you tell me it is bad. I will always evaluate T, Spec, and other issues of fairness first unless you tell me not to.

Disadvantages: I am more prone to voting on D/As that have high-probability links and internal links with relatively contained impacts rather than colossal impacts but only a small likelihood of reaching those impacts. I dislike it when debaters ask me to vote out of fear of a 1% risk of some catastrophic impact. If you aren’t winning your link story, I am not going to evaluate whatever your impacts are for you. I also think that without carded evidence, 95% of politics D/As in parli are utterly vacuous on the internal link level. I realize I am likely in the minority on this view.

Counterplans: If there are no theory arguments being won on the C/P, then I will vote for it as long as it is a better policy option than either the plan or the permutation. I don’t have many fixed beliefs when it comes to C/P theory, with these few exceptions: -I lean towards the Opp on topical C/P theory (that is, I tend to believe that topical C/Ps are ok). -Winning the perm only means that the C/P goes away. Perms should also have texts. -I’ll listen to both sides of a conditionality debate, but if the C/P gets kicked in the block, I will give the PMR quite a bit of leeway in making new answers. -Unless there is a call for the ballot in the theory shell, I will assume that I am supposed to reject the argument and not the team. -Specificity counts for something—a defense of consult C/Ps specific to your particular C/P is more compelling to me than a generic consult C/Ps good block.

Kritiks: The K was my bread and butter for the last two years of my career as a debater, and kritiks are my favorite arguments to watch as a critic. Delving into the philosophical reasons for our policies is important to do. I don’t require K’s to have an alternative beyond “vote for us,” but if that is your alternative, some solvency would be spiffy. Unless you offer some framework arguments, I will weigh the K through net-benefits, which probably makes me the oppressor, but really, I’m too lazy to care. I’m intrigued by performance but am not very well-read about it. If you run performance, it is in your best interests to assume that I am not very smart.

Speaker points: I try to be pretty mainstream on these—you start with a 27, and my range hovers in the 25-29 range. I might give out one or two 30’s over the course of an entire year. A 29 or 29.5 represents a truly excellent speech, I may give these out once a tournament or less. The bulk of my points fall in the 26-28 range. I usually don’t go below 24 unless you were rude.

Points of Order: I do my best to find and disregard new arguments in rebuttals on my own (this includes any new line-by-line arguments in the LOR), but you should probably call points of order just in case I missed something. Unless I’m on a panel, I try to rule on points of order rather than simply ‘taking them under consideration, but if I do rule ‘taken under consideration,’ it most likely means that I don’t see that particular argument as a big deal in how I see the round.

Delivery: If I am flowing on my laptop, feel free to speak as fast as you want (although you probably don’t need to), I should be able to keep up. If I am flowing by hand, it is possible to spread me out of the round (rare, but it has happened), and I will holler something if I am starting to lose you. In either case, if you are asked to slow down by your opponents or another judge, I expect you to do so; not doing so is a guaranteed way to tank your speaker points in front of me. (I also think that there should not be a stigma in asking your opponents to slow down or to repeat a point; if your opponents aren’t accessing the debate, then what’s happening isn’t really debate.)

Decorum: I don’t give a tinker’s damn what you wear or if you speak sitting down. Stop asking me if it is okay to do so. There is also no need to thank me profusely at the beginning of every speech—I am paid to be here. Rudeness should never be acceptable, but especially so if you are decisively beating up on a younger, less experienced, or less talented team. Play nicely.

One final random note—please do not simply blitz through plan, C/P, or perm text, hand a copy to your opponents, and continue with your speech. It is really important that I get the text down word-for-word on my flow, and calling for plan text after the round seems a bit sketchy to me when parli judges can't just call for cards like in policy. Slow down a notch when you read it, and read it twice through.

I am always happy to disclose my decisions. Feel free to ask any questions you may have.