Karlson,+William


 * Stratford/Harvard**

I will do my best to be open to all arguments; however, the extent to which I (fail to) understand a particular argument will likely influence its persuasive value to me as well as the degree of explanation necessary for me to feel comfortable voting for you. You can probably watch my body language to determine whether or not I understand/am persuaded by your argument.

Topicality: I find that well-developed topicality arguments can be interesting and persuasive, perhaps more so than other judges. I tend to evaluate these in terms of competing interpretations, but can be convinced to use an alternative framework if it is well explained. Generally my primary concern with 'reasonability' is that the Aff does a very poor job of explaining what effects that has upon how I should resolve the debate. However, my openness to more developed violations sort of cuts both ways, because it means that I will likely be less patient with blippy violations (a 20 second 'substantial' violation, should=past tense of shall, etc). Also, I usually find it impressive if either team can produce evidence describing the likely political effects of a particular interpretation of words in the resolution.

Other arguments about plan texts: These generally seem very silly to me. Assuming a plan is topical, I don't think it is possible for it to be 'abusive' in any other sense. Questions of specification/vagueness, plan flaws, etc should either be framed as T questions, solvency/evidenciary questions, or ignored. If a team's plan text is vague and you want to establish a link to a DA, you should A) ask them in CX and/or B) read evidence describing the likely effects of the plan. If an aff is unwilling to answer CX questions about their plan, I think that's fine, but they then forfeit the right to clarify later (except, of course, by reading evidence which I will then compare to Neg evidence). As a side-note, I do not think A-spec is a T question, and can't imagine finding it persuasive.

DAs: I think predictive uniqueness questions can never be established with certainty, and therefore prefer to first resolve the direction of the link. However, if told to do otherwise, I would be perfectly willing to ignore this. I think DAs should probably be intrinsic.

CPs: I err neg on all theory issues except those listed specifically below. That doesn't mean I am unwilling to reject a CP on PICs bad, only that my predisposition is not to do so. I also think theory is almost always a reason to reject the argument, but not the team (conditionality/dispositionality being an exception). Consult: I generally think these are illegitimate and non-competitive, but if a Neg has very, very good solvency evidence about the __plan__, they will substantially improve their chances on both of these issues. Note that I have a very high threshold for what constitutes "very very good solvency evidence" in this context. Conditions: This is similar to consult, except the literature is usually better, so I am more willing to vote for these. Agent CPs: I am mostly thinking here of international/multiple actor fiat, but domestic agent CPs raise less extreme versions of the same theoretical questions. I generally think these are legitimate, but am not sure that they necessarily test the opportunity cost of a particular political actor. Therefore, although most of the reasons that these CPs are illegitimate make little sense to me, a well developed argument about their failure to test opportunity cost could definitely persuade me to reject them. Normal means CPs: I don't think that these are competitive, unless the Aff makes stupid mistakes in CX. Reading cards about the way the plan would be implemented absent the CPs fiated action does not mean that a world where the permutation explicitly alters it would look the same.

Kritiks: I used to really hate these, but have moderated somewhat in the past couple years. Here are the issues you should be aware of: 1) Framework: I begin with the assumption that the role of the ballot is to choose among simulated policy options. Therefore, the plan is the affirmative's normative statement of what should be changed, and the rest of the 1AC is a series of positive truth claims describing a world in which that occurs. I tend to think that evidence describing the relationship between representations and reality, etc is smart, but inapplicable to debate, because it is a game of sophistry with no necessary correspondence between what a speaker says and what they believe. I also find that the frequent "compromise" (we get our aff and they get their reps K) is logically incoherent as a framework, but am willing to use it if told to do so by the debaters.

2) Alternative: My primary concern here is that these are often so poorly explained (how they function, how they relate to the role of the ballot, etc) that I find them difficult to vote for. You should spend pre-round (and in-round) prep thinking about how to best articulate your alt and how it interacts with your links, their perm(s), and their advantage(s). It's not as much that I think vagueness is a 'theory issue' as much as that I am uncomfortable endorsing a political strategy that is extremely nebulous.

3) Literature: I know significantly more about some K's (ex: Foucault, Marx/Cap, Nietzsche, some queer theory, some CRT stuff, most IR K's) than others (ex: Heidegger, Baudrillard, Deleuze, Badiou, Butler, fem) so that will inevitably affect my ability to resolve some of those debates. I also think Lacan, Chaloupka, parts of Zizek's work, and all the other psychoanalysis stuff is basically garbage. Not saying I won't vote for it though. Also, I find specific literature dramatically more interesting, persuasive and educational than generic stuff.