Harris,+Martin

THIS IS MY HIGH SCHOOL PHILOSOPHY FOR THE OHIO VALLEY TOURNAMENT. I believe philosophies ought be format specific. My preferences vary by form. If you want an old version of my college policy philosophy, see the tab on changes from the one posted by someone on me from 3 years ago (2007). Parli philosophy is at net-benefits.net. NFA-LD philosophy on debatecooperative.com somewhere.

Who am I? For what it is worth, I don’t think much at all, I debated for UMKC from 1990-1994. During that time my coaches were Linda Collier, Josh Hoe, Tom Degarlais, and David McDonald. I learned a lot about what I think of debate from them. From 1994-1996 I debated for Missouri State (then Southwest Missouri State), one year CEDA, one year NDT pre-“merger”. Coaches were John Fritch, Greg Achten, and Jan Hovden. I learned yet more from John and Jan. Not so much Greg. I coached for 2 years at Towson, 2 years back at Missouri State, then 4 years doing NFA-LD (3 at Drury, 1 at Western Kentucky). I am currently an assistant for Washburn University. They do “NPDA/NPTE” parli. What does all of this mean? Other than I have done debate for a LONG time, I don’t think much at all. I doubt most know NFA-LD is actually 1 person policy. Albeit practiced more like what one would see at NFL/CFL than NDCA/TOC. Some people seem to think “pedigree” is important though, so there it is.

Some things you probably would like to know.

1. In general, I overcomplicate a lot of things. How does this impact you? If you are prone to use debate soundbites, like “uniqueness controls the direction of the link” or “this is all defense, any risk of a link to the disad is ballgame” you are probably way behind. Uniqueness can outstrip the link. If your politics uniqueness says something like X bill is dead on arrival, has virtually no support of any members, and there simply isn’t enough time to get to it in the lame duck session, chances of you winning a “winner’s win” link sufficient to overcome these obstacles is about 1 in a million.

Which leads to “any risk” “arguments.” While jokes about slim to no risk meaning you still have a shot are funny, they are not persuasive argument to me. There is such thing as terminal defense. It might be as rare as Francium, but it can, and does exist. You should make arguments as to why it is not terminal, not just say, “this is merely defense.” If it is devastatingly good defense, you might be in a world of hurt. Not to mention, defense does mitigate a LOT of your “offense.” Magnitude ought not be the end all be all. It is highly possible/probable that large probabilities of systemic, albeit finite, magnitude “outweighs” “infinite risk”. Especially since I don’t automatically assume nuclear war is infinite. Having been known to have an affinity for “spark” positions, I am rather easily persuaded that nuclear war risks are rather survivable, and/or, the nuclear part of the escalation is unlikely. A carded Schell, Kateb, Fox, insert infinite risk author of your choice though, probably needs some decent counterevidence/analysis. Something more than “your philosophy says nuclear war isn’t likely, so I know you aren’t buying this” because that is NOT very persuasive. My predispositions are that, PRE dispositions, not unmovable anchors or lines in the sand. And please don’t quote my philosophy to me. I know what I said, but I more importantly know what I MEANT and it may not be what you are assuming. Reason I think philosophies are usually more harm than good. I can’t encapsulate 20 years of debate thought in under a 200 page book probably, much less a two page philosophy.

2. Kritiks. I can honestly say I can think of about 4 times in debate I have happily voted for a kritik. I have also been saying this in various philosophies for probably near 10 years now. About once a tournament someone thinks they are hot enough to be number 5. They are almost always wrong. While I have voted for them other times, they usually make me fairly angry. Outside of the 4 times I enjoyed the debate, I was probably wildly unpredictable. What is the difference between the 4 times and the plethora of others? Jargon versus argument. I don’t really think anyone is under the illusion/delusion that plan ACTUALLY passes. I also realize that “fiat is illusory” is probably so circa 2K2. That said, some of the replacements are as equally unenlightening/insightful to me. See number 1 in some ways. If you are prone to enjoying the K, I want to see SPECIFIC application of the argument to the specific affirmative. Or the affirmative to the topic. What is the ARGUMENT, not a bunch of mumbo jumbo about interrogating my ontology coming first. I have no idea what my “ontology” is, nor my “epistemology”, much less what that means to “come first.” And what happens when they “turn” your ontology, whatever that means. If you are just reading prewritten blocks, probably not what I am looking for.

Likewise, I have little comprehension of why “realism good” somehow answers any and all Ks. Especially if your plan is not realist (though I rarely see this arg made). Nor do I think College debate, much less high school debate, is training future policy makers. Policy influencers, sure, makers not so much (see above about nuance and overcomplicating issues). I know a lot of ex-debate lawyers, lobbyists, campaign managers, think tank analysts, no Senators or Representatives. Reason for years I found Dallas’ concepts of town hall model of fiat somewhat intriguing. I think notions of “roll playing” should go beyond thinking we ARE policy makers, and more revolve around understanding policy making as a decision maker in electing policy makers. That is, being good Republic citizens.

Nor do I think debate collapse disads are all that persuasive in the general. Specific types of debate, sure. Debate, not so much. I also have zero understanding as how to “weigh your advantages” against a methodology kritik that questions the very reason to believe your advantage is even true. For instance, old school threat construction arguments might have a component about your scenarios being fiction manufactured to justify militarism. Saying, extend my nuclear war scenario, it outweighs does nothing to answer your scenario is a lie. How, much less why, would I weigh a lie against a nonunique militarism argument? It is a lie, hence not true. That is terminal defense. Why is uniqueness even an issue if the kritik advantage isn’t a triggered argument? These are all examples, even though a mere tip of the iceberg, of types of args I see in “K” debates that frustrate my sense of making a comprehensible decision.

3. Lastly, decisions to me ought be comprehensible. If I don’t understand your argument, I am probably not going to vote for it. So, for example, “any perm would be severance or intrinsic, that is a voter for competitive equity” is virtually nonsensical to me. I will probably not vote on that, even if dropped. When inevitably answering the “why is the perm intrinsic” question from the aff after the debate, I am going to need a reason it is so. I don’t really find, well, cause you dropped it all that comforting. I need to know why the perm is severance or intrinsic, why it is a ivi (default on theory to me is reject the argument not the team), and how competitive equity is restored by making it a voter. Likewise for the aff, “perm do the cplan” does nothing to explain to me how or why the perm is a perm. You know, all of the plan, part or all of the cplan? Perm do the cplan sounds to me like NONE of the aff, all of the cplan. At a minimum, following “perm do the cplan” needs to be an explanation of how all the aff is included in the permutation.

The only real guidance I can provide here is, be smart. And that is smart smart, not strategic smart. Is strategic ambiguity strategically advantageous? Sure, but probably to the dearth of my comprehension. I would rather understand, in fact require comprehension, to you tricking the other team into “dropping” some 3 second blip that somehow fundamentally makes irrelevant the rest of the 90 minutes of debate. Extend your argumentative reasoning. Compare your reasoning to the opposition’s reasoning. Crystalize, compare and weigh in the final rebuttals. I will not do work for either team if one side is telling a better story. I will do work to make comparisons if neither team does. You will inevitably not enjoy that “intervention”, but I am unsure as to how to make a decision if all you do is pull author names, assume you are winning everything and opposition is winning nothing. Truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Those that contingency plan, do what if analysis, and provide alternative decision criteria, such as, even if they win timeframe, we still win because our total risk (probability * magnitude) is so much larger, that even if our impacts take 10 years, it is better to avoid a systemic long term impact that occurs year in and year out than taking a one time risk of a disad that would happen tomorrow, but we can probably ride out and recover from.

Beyond that, any questions, just ask. My nonverbals are usually glaring. I try to be transparent as to what I am thinking as the round progresses. There are dozens of other arguments I have not covered, but as I said, can’t speak to them all.