Robinson,+David

Last Updated: 2/11/14 Affiliation: Millard South

"Old school policy debating is a phenomenal activity. But when it confronts difference, it seems to confront difference the way so many hegemonies do: it runs over it, it annihilates it, it marginalizes it, and it does violence to it ... You can't debate effectively if you're not open to the possibility of being changed in a given debate round. Which is, I think, magical." -Specter of Policy Debate

Debate should be a safe space for a contest of ideas. Debate is recreated in every round by the debaters. My role as a judge is determined by the arguments presented in a given debate. I'm not going to pretend to be a blank slate, I don't check my knowledge and experience at the door, but I do believe in the potential of debate to change my world at any moment. Have fun and do what you love.

In order to explain to the nonwinning team why they didn't win, I need to understand every piece of your argument to vote on it. This has a few consequences: 1) Generic arguments (disads, CPs, Ks, perms) require detailed analysis and extrapolation about their interaction with your opponents' arguments. 2) I tend to give the other team leeway on underdeveloped arguments, unwarranted voters, and 'cheap shots'. You will likely have to make new arguments to successfully extend one of these argument and make me understand it, so your opponent gets an opportunity to refute it.

I'm fine with speed, but I want to comprehend every word. I respect you as a speaker, and if it's worthy of being said then it should be worthy of ending up on my flow. I want to hear the warrants of your evidence not just the claims of your tags.

I prefer to not read evidence after the round, because ideally I was able to flow it while it was being read. I think your application and analysis is more important than the phrasing your author uses. If your opponent's evidence is terrible, point it out. Likewise if yours is fire. I will only read evidence to resolve competing interpretations of a card.

I think I give more weight to defense than most judges. A smart, warranted 'defensive' argument trumps ".1% risk of a link." This also applies to evidence quality and author indicts.


 * Critiques/Critical Affs/Performance/Non-Traditional/etc**: I love it all. Be creative. I like to think that I'm well versed in most common debate literature, but don't rely on catchphrases.


 * Framework**: I err on the side of open argumentation. In place of framework, there are better non-exclusionary arguments to gain leverage against a criticism. Defend your method (roleplaying good, fiat good, state good), answer theirs (link defense/turns, detailed permutations, alt indicts), and make specific comparisons between the two.


 * Topicality**: I don't believe the affirmative must inherently read a plan text, but I tend to think they should speak to the resolution in some capacity. Whatever you do, defend it.


 * Negation theory/multiple conditional worlds**: I fail to comprehend contradictory positions. As a speaker, you lose authority to make one claim when you literally negate it ten seconds later.