Birzer,+Chris

Chris Birzer

Last Edited: 2/17/2015

Blue Valley West 2013 University of Kansas 2017

If anything on here is unclear, do not hesitate to ask.

Top Level Issues: 1) Tech outweighs truth. I prefer fast (and clear), technical debates; a dropped argument is a true argument. An argument must include a claim and a warrant at minimum ("vote no" and "perm -- do the counterplan," for example, fail to meet this standard). 2) Debates should resolve the frame through which evidence is read. 3) Clarity outweighs speed. If I cannot hear every single word you are saying, it is insufficient. Speaker points will suffer after being cleared multiple times.

Some specifics (the following are all subject to change and are just defaults; I find that my thoughts about debate are constantly in flux):

Kritiks—I would not say that I am well read in very much critical literature which just means that you should be more deliberate about not using buzz words and explaining thesis of the kritik and how it relates to the 1ac. I am not the judge to go for the K of the word "dumb" or "guys" or most other microaggressions.

Counterplans—I think that counterplans are almost definitely legitimate if they have a solvency advocate, use the same agent as the affirmative, and compete based off of an explicit mandate of the plan text. I think that counterplans that compete off of immediacy or certainty are probably not competitive.

Disads—Impact calc and turns case arguments should be initiated early in the debate.

Theory—I almost always think that theory is a reason to reject the argument not the team. The negative gets unlimited conditional advocacies. I have an almost overwhelming bias that conditionality is good in almost every circumstance that does not force direct aff contradictions. You should be able to kick individual planks of CPs. 2nc CPs are legitimate in almost every instance.

Topicality—It’s always a voter and never a reverse voter. I am much more persuaded by predictable and precise interpretations of the topic than anything else.

Framework/non-topical affs —I have changed my thoughts about this issue quite a bit. I do think that tech outweighs truth but I also think that the aff should have an instrumental defense of topical action. What this means is debateable. I will do my best to evaluate these affs with objectivity but I have found that I have a very strong bias towards the need for a predictable and contestable advocacy as a precondition for debate to occur. I generally find myself unpersuaded by arguments that suggest that topicality is an attempt to exclude people. I am also generally unpersuaded by any variety of the arguments that say that what the aff said is more important than defending topical action. The affirmative would be best suited in these debates by articulating a clear interpretation of the resolution that provides equitable and predictable ground to the negative.

If the 2NR goes for an advocacy, I will not kick it unless explicitly told that I can in the 2NR. Offense/defense makes sense to me in most instances, though I am willing to assign zero risk to an argument, especially in the instance of a technical drop. Absent any discussion, presumption goes to the team advocating the least change.

I am open to arguments about disclosure. If I catch you clipping/cheating in some other way, I will give you a loss and zero speaks even if the other team does not challenge it. If you want to challenge that the other team has clipped, then you need to have audio recording to prove it.

chrisbirzer [at] gmail [dot] com