Munksgaard,+Jane

Pitt/New Trier
2009

I would like to think I’m a fairly reasonable critic when it comes to evaluating different types of arguments even if they’re not what I would prefer to listen to for 2 hours. Basically, you can do whatever you want and I'll vote on a combination of the flow and how the rebuttals direct me to evaluate the round.

That being said, in my ideal world, I have a few dispositions: 1) I think you should read a plan 2) I think said plan should be about the resolution 3) I think you should defend the ramifications of your plan being passed and implemented. 4) I'm not a huge fan of cheap shots Now specifics:

Kritik: A good k debate for me involves specific links (something better than “they use the state and the state is bad”), some impacts, and an alternative. I have voted on method kritiks before but find them a much harder sell. However, watching many affs screws these types of kritiks up I understand the strategic benefit of running purely methodological criticisms. Alternatives are best if you articulate what my role as a judge is and how that role relates to the ballot. They’re even better if you can solve the case.

I find framework debates interesting. If you’re aff and you win the framework I don’t automatically think you win. It just means you can weigh your advantages against the kritik. For some kritiks this will work well, but others that deny the truth, logic, etc etc of your advantage claims/ontology/epistemology/insert various ology here, can still serve as either offense or defense against your aff. So make sure you still have some offense left in the debate. This being said, if it’s a method kritik I think negatives do need to win framework to have a chance of beating back “specific solvency for case outweighs kritik with no alternative.”

Disads: I don’t automatically default to uniqueness to determine which team is winning the direction of the disad. I generally prefer a more proportional link and uniqueness debate. IE- if the uniqueness debate is fairly close but one team is clearly controlling the direction of the link I’ll tend to lean towards the team clearly ahead in the link debate. If you want me to evaluate uniqueness first articulate that in a speech and why. If you win that argument then I’ll probably evaluate it first. Impacts are pretty important. Affirmatives need to contest the impacts and negatives need to remember to extend them. I won’t do it for you if you forget in the 2nr. If affirmatives drop that the disad impacts turn the case they are in trouble.

CP’s: I think PICS are very strategic and fun to judge. If you’re aff and going for solvency deficit outweighs the disad you better make sure to talk about why the case impacts are so big, short term, and probable they outweigh a disad that you’re lacking offense on. Assume you will lose a big part of the disad and persuade me why the advantages are more important.

Theory: Being an old 2A I’m found of a good theory debate. Note the “good” qualification. I think good theory debates involve an interpretation, a debate about limits, and impacts. If you’re missing one of these things it will be nearly impossible to get my ballot on theory. If you can do these things well you’re in good shape. I tend to err aff on artificial competition/multi-actor fiat/and multiple CP’s. I tend to err neg on dispo/conditionality/PICS. I also think CPing out of external impact turns in the 2nc is fairly easy to justify.

Topicality: I don’t automatically defer to competing interpretations (although I can if you tell me to). I tend to think you need to articulate some significant ground you lost, because otherwise aff arguments concerning reasonability become offensive justifications for their interpretation.

Other tips: Be funny! If you make me laugh your points will be higher. A coach once told me, “If you have a choice between making one more joke or one more argument make the joke every time.” I agree with this completely. Unless you need that last argument to win.

Be nice to your partner. Even if you hate them you can at least pretend. It kills your ethos to argue with your partner during a round. Plus, if you’re an ass I’ll probably dock your points. Debate is supposed to be fun. Run with that.

Open CX is fine as long as one partner doesn’t dominate the other too much. It’s called a team for a reason. If one partner is too dominating someone’s points will reflect that.

Enjoy! If you have more questions please ask. And remember that all my "predispositions" that I outlined above are all up for debate!