Chang,+Lawrence

2010-2011

Lawrence Chang

Affiliation: Clear Lake, UCLA, Notre Dame HS

Many absolutes in debate are irrational. You don't "need" case defense or a counterplan to win on a disad. Your kritik doesn't "need" an alternative. You don't automatically lose if you drop a disad. Though you may have a hard time winning if you don't do certain things, that will be determined by the debate, not by my decision that you "did things the wrong way." I will never vote against you solely because of the fact that you didn't do something the traditional way.

My general approach to judging debates is to resolve them with as little intervention as possible. Despite this approach, lack of analysis in late rebuttals often results in a "two ships passing in the dark" phenomenon where the judge must weigh solid positions from both the affirmative and the negative with minimal guidance as to how exactly the two positions should be compared. This type of guidance for the judge is absolutely critical in the 2NR and 2AR if you want the debate to be judged "how it should." If such analysis is absent, decisions are inherently affected by the judge's predispositions. As such, I will state those predispositions here:

-Assuming the debate is not centered around theory/topicality, I am deciding whether the plan is a good idea or not. -Death and suffering are bad -Magnitude is very important - extinction is the worst terminal impact -War does not necessarily mean extinction -Conceded impacts supported by evidence are of a high probability -Timeframe is only important in the sense of causality (e.g. "our impact is faster and turns theirs" is significant, "everyone dies in 10 yrs vs 20 yrs" is not)

Remember, these are simply my predispositions which I feel will affect my decision if I am not given guidance by the debaters. Any one of them can be overriden by basic, warranted arguments, you just actually have to do it.


 * Specific Arguments**

1. Topicality - In my opinion the easiest argument to evaluate objectively. Both competing interpretations and reasonability are absolutely justifiable lenses for evaluation. In my eyes, the argument here is whether topicality is an offense/defense issue or not. I urge teams to illustrate the difference between debate in the world of the interpretation and the world of the counter-interpretation.

2. Counterplans - Competition is an important issue. I am easily persuaded by arguments that textual competition is a minimum standard. Theory arguments like PICs bad, Agent CPs bad, conditionality bad, etc. are all winnable arguments. Don't be afraid to read and go for CP theory if you believe you're winning. If your net benefit is vague and amorphous, the aff can probably win with an equally vague and amorphous solvency deficit and/or add-on. Permutations probably should include the entirety of the plan.

3. Theory - For theory arguments other than those mentioned above, I don't have too much to say because I haven't been involved in very many debates where the 2NR/2AR was something like severance or 2NC counterplans bad. If the argument is valid and you're winning, go ahead, but I don't believe "this argument is severance" in the 1AR without explanation is enough to win a debate, even if dropped by the 2NR. Theory doesn't have to be the entire 2NR/2AR.

4. Disads - The meat and potatoes of debate. A lot of disads are poorly constructed, but a lot of affirmatives let that pass so I usually have to as well. Simple analytical answers by the affirmative can be very effective with detailed analysis. In DA+Case vs Plan scenarios, impact calculus is obviously very important, but a lot of affirmative teams neglect the implications that defensive arguments have for the probability of the impact. It's a good idea.

5. Kritiks - They're interesting and fun to debate/evaluate. I haven't read the specific literature for most kritiks, but I do have a great deal of experience running and answering them. The best K debaters make detailed references to specific lines of affirmative evidence and arguments made by the affirmative and illustrate their implications, not just "TEH PLAN IS THE GUVERMINT IS CAPITALIST1!1ELevEN!1 B10POWAAAAA!" Most kritik debates come down to the framing of the debate. Whichever team establishes a framework for the debate will have the best opportunity to manipulate the arguments in the round and win.

I don't think the negative necessarily has to defend a "role of the ballot" because the affirmative is never held to that standard. Also, don't expect to get away with being assholes and drowning your opponents in jargon. I'm not going to bend backwards to try to make sense of it or read through chapters of evidence.