Joseph.+James

Updated 4/25/11 for the 2011 TOC

I have 8 years of experience in policy debate. I debated for four years in high school, attending the TOC once, and I debated for Gonzaga University (Go Zags!). I also coached a high school team (Saint George's from Spokane, WA) for 4 years.

For the 2010-2011 military topic specifically – I have not judged this year. Ever since I graduated I have been working as a clerk at a law firm in San Diego. I have keep in contact with my former team and am familiar with some of their arguments on the affirmative and negative. Obviously I still remember big picture debates like heg but it would serve you well to spend more time on the specifics of your argument.

Topicality – Because I haven't seen alot of rounds on this topic, this is one debate where speed will only hurt you. I am not familiar with many of the established terms or trends of the topic and therefore it will be hard for me to determine what has been good ground and what is a good limit on the topic by myself. You must do this work. Specifics, like a case list, and specific arguments that you lose/gain with your interpretation will help a great deal. In the end, topicality is a gaming of competing interpretation (but I could be swayed otherwise) where the two "impacts" are education and fairness. Personally, I like to see work done on T. The more cards you have that clearly outline what your interpretation is (that are in the context of the rez) will only help you. I HATE tag-line T debates. I don't care if they other team drops 2 of your 8 standards. It all comes down to education and fairness so whoever has the clearly story on those two impacts wins.

Counter-plan in general – always a good thing. I believe every 1nc should have one unless there is some strategic reason to not have one. Textually or functionally competition can be debated out. Personally, I think functional competition is enough.

Process CP – the hardest thing for these CP is proving competition. Basically, if the AFF has “normal means” in their plan text and the negative has a card proving what that means, then the CP competes. Then again, why would you ever have normal means in your counter-plan text.

Consult CP – not a fan but still willing to listen to them. These counter-plans come down to the perm, and the perm is won/lost on the quality of the evidence. True genuine consultation key evidence is hard to come by. But its a slayer when it works. I would really not like to hear theory. If your AFF, spend time on the perm. Or impact turning the Net Benefit. This isn't football, offense wins championships

PICS – PICS are ALWAYS good, unless the theory argument is dropped. Competition questions can be debated out but I am ok with just functional competition. If the NEG has a card saying the AFF’s aid includes “X” and “X” is bad, you should have an answer other than theory.

Word PICS – same as PICS, these CPs are awesome but you MUST have the evidence for it. You have to prove there is some functionally difference between the words too. This can be a well explained "reps shape reality" argument or the legal interpretation of one word will have a different outcome than the other. Make sure your evidence is specific to the use of the actually word, not just the actually concept (ie, there is a difference between saying reps of Afghanistan are bad versus saying the word Afghanistan is bad)

Conditions CP – these are fine. The biggest problem is the say yes evidence. If you are AFF don’t be afraid of just saying there say yes evidence is out of context and then come up with a warranted analytic to win the say no debate.

Multiple actor CPs – not a fan. AFF’s should go for theory. I will say this, the UN security council, NATO, EU, and other international agencies are not multiple actors in my view.

K’s in general – like 'em. The most mis-handled part of this argument is framework. The negative MUST tell me my role in the round. Otherwise I default to a policy maker and will probably view the K as a non-unique DA with a utopia CP text. For the AFF, make sure your win framework enough to prove why you access your case (go for the middle ground, not the “exclude K’s” framework). Your best bet on winning is either the perm or the impact turn. Going for link turns are helpful when combined with the perm. Otherwise, they will probably win a risk of their link, and they have an alternative that solves. K's are generic and the same ideas/philosophies are run every year but the explanation and application must be specific. I would rather you talked to me, not read cards at me.

Reps K’s – AFF, you gotta defend them. Make sure you are not just reading realism good cards but specific answer the K. Sometimes, explanation can be more useful than another card.

Psychoanalysis K’s – the framework on these debates is tricky. The negative has to be VERY clear on how the impacts operate. I am not a fan of this but the AFF still has to answer it.

Alternatives – this is the weakest part of the K. I believe there should be some form of a text to the alternative and it should be clearly explained. AFF’s should exploit this part of the K. Be warned, I am more open to floating PICS than most judges. If the NEG tries to wiggle out of explaining the K in the CX, expect lower speaker points and a link into the theory argument “vague alt.”

DA’s in general – also fun, also good. You can never have too many. For me, the link is the MOST important element of the DA. It is important to have reasons why the DA turns the case or outweighs the case and start this in the block. Be warned negative, there are a lot of bad DA’s out there and I will assign zero percent risk to an argument.

Politics – please, don’t run elections. I will be willing to vote on its too far away and there is no way to predict. There are some alright political capital DAs out there, use one of those. If you have an ANWR DA, I will probably give you an extra .5 just because.

Not normal impact DAs – by this, I refer to DA’s that have moral obligation claims, or impacts like Petro 74. I will vote but winning the impact calculus is probably just as important if not more important than the link debate. I would suggest establishing a different framework for evaluating those impacts.

Conditionality – generally I think it’s good but with limits. This is going to seem arbitrary but I think the negative gets three worlds: the Status Quo, and then two other alternatives (can be either CP or K alternative). This is based purely off my experience in debate rounds, not from some logically explanation. If the NEG goes beyond this, the AFF should not be afraid to go for theory. Dispo is silly, and the same as conditionality.

Contradictions – my way of evaluating if two arguments contradict is if the AFF can concede two arguments in the 2ac and cross apply one DA to the other. If a DA links to conditional CP, it is not a contradiction. Running contradictory arguments is not a theory issue, its a reason why the said arguments take each other out.

Project/Alternative Framework Arguments - these are fine. The majority of these debates come down to the framework naturally. But teams win these rounds when they are able to explain which project/method is best at solving "X" problem. Do I believe my ballot will start a revolution in the round and change the world forever? No. Do I believe it is important to consider these questions and there is value to these discussion that are outside the policy making framework? Yes. These debate have the potential of being the most fascinating debates for me as long as both teams are actually debating each other. This means using your framework to make all the other teams stuff irrelevant is usually a bad place to start. Framework in these rounds should be integrated with your initial argument and used as a tool to generate offense against the opponents position not as a cop out for debating.

Rebuttals – this is where debates are won and lost. Big picture matters. I don’t care if it is at the top, or the bottom, or somewhere in the middle, but there has to be a comparison of all the impacts flying around in the debate. “Even if” statements win rounds, especially when dropped. 2ars should make sure that there is a direct connection to the 1ar arguments. Best way to do this, if you think that there is a risk of an argument being new, justify it in the 2ar. The argument of the card is more important than the name of the author. Extending “Jones 02” is not an argument.

Pet peeves – Its politics, not “tics.” It’s conditionality, not “condo.” Just had to say that.

Any questions, just ask