Bowden,+Joe

Updated 4/12/2016


 * __ Overview __**

I have a few things that I apply to all debate events. Policy-specific notes follow.


 * Background: ** I’m a relatively clean slate when it comes to the topic areas being debated. I last competed in policy debate over ten years ago, when I was a senior in college. I’m in the private sector, not in the debate world. Therefore, please don’t assume that I am up-to-date on all the case literature, particularly if it’s critical or postmodern writing.


 * Flowing: ** I flow on my computer. I type much faster than I write. That means that I can flow (most of the) evidence, as well as tags and cites. I’ll know if you’re power-tagging evidence.


 * Paperless: ** I reserve the right to require that prep time stop when the flash drive comes out of the computer. I understand that you want to examine your opponents’ evidence, but I think that flowing the debate is important, too.


 * Reading Evidence: ** I almost never read evidence after a debate. If there’s some well-argued point about whether a piece of evidence is worth what one side claims that it is, then I may call for the card to break the tie. However, if reading the evidence wouldn’t make a difference, then I won’t re-open the issue.


 * __ Policy Debate __**

I debated for three and a half years at Boston College.


 * Paradigm: ** I’m in between policymaker and tabula rasa, if that makes any sense. I believe that the flow is extremely important (see above). I prefer a debate on the topic, where the debaters argue whether or not the plan is a good idea, and with impacts in the context of the framework the debaters wish to defend.


 * How to Debate in Front of Me: ** Make your advocacy clear throughout the round. Remember “tell ‘em what you’re gonna tell ‘em; tell ‘em; and tell ‘em what you told ‘em.”

I pay extra attention to arguments whose claims, warrants, and impacts are extended throughout the round. Put your logic on the flow early and often. I shouldn’t have to wait until the last two rebuttals to understand your arguments. And, I’m very strict on new answers in rebuttals to fully developed positions that haven’t changed since the first constructives.


 * What Not to Do: ** Narratives can be compelling, but this is a debate competition. While you may have a powerful personal story, I have a hard time weighing it against other arguments because it’s not debatable. If you take a position that is unable to be argued against, then you will have a difficult time winning in front of me. Both teams need to defend their positions. I will not vote for a team simply for standing up and talking about something.

Do not run more than one conditional advocacy in front of me. There’s a difference between saying that a position is “conditional” and that “the status quo is always an option for the judge”. The former implies that you can kick the argument at any time; however, if you chose not to kick it in the 2NR, then that was your choice. You are stuck with it. The latter is an argument for overt judge intervention, to which a smart affirmative would respond that the judge should then be allowed to make perm arguments on their behalf.

Don’t blast through theory shells or procedural arguments, like T. These tend to be very blippy, and I don’t always catch everything.


 * Other Stuff: ** Cross-examination answers are binding. Use this time effectively. Most link and internal link stories are so tragically flawed that you can beat them through effective cross-examination and analytical presses.

I won’t vote on A-Spec unless the negative asks and the affirmative refuses to provide essential details about plan implementation.

PICs and Agent CPs are fine. Don’t waste your time running PICS Bad. Ideally, the negative should have some good solvency evidence as to why the CP solves better than the plan. Negatives would be wise to nail down the affirmative’s agent, lest they leave themselves open to permutations on agent CPs.

A K without an alt is a non-unique disad.