Goodrich,+Robbie

Robbie Goodrich WCSU Debate 2yrs 2007-2009 Open, JV, & Novice WCSU Assistant 2 years and counting.

Judging and Me: I believe debate has significant educational value that goes far beyond research and accumulation of knowledge. Therefore I consider debate a unique pedagogical experience and the participants should act accordingly.

Paperless Debate: I find that this practice is problematic for many Novice teams and subsequently I will give each team significant room to learn this delicate practice. However, JV and Varsity teams will not receive such leeway from me. So, time spent for “jumping” or “drop-boxing” will be Prep-time for the team engaged in that practice. For teams that are not using or “forced” into Paper-less technology, you will be able to use this time as you please. If teams agree to legislate this dilemma in another fashion, that is also ok with me, just inform me before we start the round.

Framework: I will only “defer” to a Policy Good, Policy Bad, Performance or Kritical Framework if these Frameworks are argued with a specific net-benefit to these styles. I do believe that you can Win Framework and still lose the round when I am the Critic.

I believe Policies have systemic impacts and Kritical arguments have Policy implications!

When you are Aff you should know: (1) I believe in Significance, and Probability, (2) Be completely clear on the probability of your impacts, and if you have multiple extinction scenarios have Internal Link scenarios for the “one” you are “going” for. (3) Permutation, if this your only way to win the round, you are in big trouble with me in the back of the room, on K’s or CP’s, unless there is a clear net-benefit, which is articulated! (4) DisAds, I believe strategic concession of Links or making No Link arguments for DisAds are most important, and arguing the Magnitude of the DisAds’ impact is less than the Affs can be persuasive (5) Counter-Plan, I believe that most PICS are Non-Competitive, and making Ground and Fairness claims against these are best, (6) Kritiks, No Link arguments are not made enough because this is the easiest way to mitigate the Impacts of the K, can you really Perm a K? (7)Topicality, is rarely (1 out of 100) an RVI, but Offense is always a good Defense, and Reasonability is believable, (8) Framework, why should the Aff have a Plan and a Framework, make sure I know. I will consider the value of solving for systemic impacts versus policy impacts and vice-versus. I can be persuaded either way!

When you are Neg you should know: (1) Good clean D/A debate is fun for me, Link and MPX are often the focus but a strong Internal Link and Brink scenario are more preferred by me 2) C/P’s must be Competitive, but I will defer to functionality if not told otherwise, Plan Plus CP’s are really abusive, Justification for multiple worlds and contradictory positions are “slippery slopes”(3) Kritiques, are a very valuable and very acceptable argument for this activity, “k’s” are the great equalizer, but be absolutely clear about your advocacy and how Linking to it effects the probability of your Impacts, also Alternatives can be permed, rejected, and disadvantageous based on a well articulated Time-Frame argument, be careful with these arguments in-front of me because I know most of the literature and can be persuaded to vote against the K, based on ambiguity, if it exists, (4) Topicality, I will defer to Competing Interpretations and I really like when Field Contextuality is leveraged as a net-benefit of your definition, don’t pin your hopes on a dictionary definition and hope I see the educational benefit, ground claim, fairness etc… as a net-benefit to your definition. I will vote on T if it is proven to be true.

Theory: A bad theory debate is just bad debating. So, I must be 100% convinced that abuse has happened and the abuse has terminally limited the Abused!

I am flow-centric and pride myself on being able to flow fast debates, but that is predicated on the debaters being clear, I will not yell clear, if you see me not writing, this is a sign that I don’t understand you.