Repko,+Will


 * Broad Picture:**


 * 1. To me, judge philosophies *create a curriculum* for a course.**

Instead of the "course" being an undergraduate class, the "course" is a debate round. Often, rounds are viewed as extremely isolated events. This is true in some ways -- but we should not ignore that our students have many, many of these isolated events. Over time, the curriculum set for those isolated events adds-up. By way of example only, the "isolated" norm of allowing the Neg to have a credible shot of winning on ASPEC (say from 1997-2006) resulted in tens of thousands of "isolated" debates on the subject. What could have been taught instead (if, say, the norm was that ASPEC would not meet with *competitive success* for those ten years) ?... Something comparably useless ?... I guess it all depends on the curriculum we set.


 * 2. To me, your strikecard is akin to the moment when you decide to select a prof for a course.**

Maybe you'll sign-up for easy classes this semester... maybe you will sign-up for challenging ones... These analogies hold when deciding which judges you would prefer to help shape your curriculum.


 * 3. The young teacher at your high school v. the tough teacher at your high school**

Everyone loved the "new teachers"... They wanted to be well-liked... they let you slack-off or get away with sub-par work. We've all had moments when "we liked the prof because they were an easy A".

Then, there was that one teacher that everyone complained about because getting an A was difficult. That teacher was, at times, annoying...but everyone saw that teacher's course as a challenge... and, if you got an A in *that* course... well, it felt like an accomplishment.

Years ago, I hoped to be the most well-liked judge. I was the young teacher.

Now, I am less interested in giving everyone what they *want*... and more interested in setting a challenging curriculum that is based on what I sense students (and the activity) need for their education. If you sign-up for my course (via prefs on your strikecard), I will offer you a challenging, but meaningful, curriculum.


 * 4. "Big tent" may have been correct at one stage... But, in my opinion, it is not the curriculum the activity needs at this time.**

I took the education courses -- and I get the analogy. There is a sentiment in educational circles that a radically open curriculum (a "big tent") causes students to be more invested... And, as the theory goes, they'll then push their own education to new horizons. The theory is based on a fundamental assumption -- that the typical high school student is astonishingly bored with school and that grades no longer can motivate them. Thus, the *have* to be inspired by a radically open criteria.

To be blunt, that theory often fails in high schools. When my "big tent" younger teachers let me do a book report on "whatever I wanted", I did my report based on things *within* my current horizons because it was less-challenging. I did reports based on the high school debate topic because the hard research was already done. In time, even the student teachers realized that I was gaming the system for convenience and not "radically challenging myself". I didn't care -- I wanted an easy A...

I recall certain debaters telling me (in my more non-interventionist days) that I was "their favorite judge". When pushed as to why, it was eye-opening. My philosophy of radical openness was not inspiring them to new horizons -- it was allowing them to win on what was most familiar to them based on their high school experience. They were handing-in easiest book report and loving that I kept giving it an A.

... Given the competitive impulses that drive so much of college debate (everyone is so very competitive and thus people *do* care about their "grade"), I no longer think that non-intervention and "big tent" are positively inspiring a better curriculum. The short-term drive to succeed (which incentivizes debating within one's comfort zone) and the desire to keep things manageable (which also incentivizes debating within one's comfort zone) have resulted in the opposite of big tent's intended effect. New horizons are not being pursued -- stale one are being crystalized.

This is not in the student's or the activity's best interest. Instead, it is purely in the best short-term competitive interest of some competitors. I think those interests should take a back-seat for awhile.


 * To this end:**


 * 1. This topic is thin on good disads.**

This will cause you to want to "fill-up the 1NC"... I would prefer that it be filled-up with items that clash with the 1AC and not throwaway theory and K args.


 * 2. I will not vote on ASPEC or the consult cplan under any sequence of events.**

... I would like for the Aff to address the T arguments embedded within ASPEC and the disad embedded within consult c-plans. Absent that, I would prefer that the Aff not address the 1NC on these positions at all.

The neg's goal -- to "force the 2A to not clash as much with the real args" -- is not a goal that I care to foster.

I will understand if I am on a panel -- but I genuinely mean that (in a varsity round) I would prefer that the 2A not even attend to these args.


 * 3. I think "not-intrinsic" presumptively means "no spillover".**

Any other presumptive meaning places excessive emphasis on specialized language.

If you would like for "no forced choice" or "not intrinsic" to mean "I am running a permutation against your disad that means I fiat away the terminal impact", you had best make that crystal clear. The upshot is that I think I judge not-intrinsic differently than most.


 * 4. I am a bad judge for the K** -- although I do not hate it so much that my philosophy is akin to my approach to ASPEC and Consult.

I just happen to this that the K is on the wrong side of the framework arg, on wrong side of the perm 2X bind, on wrong side of the alt accomplishing anything, and on the wrong side of whether critical theory is a terribly wise thing to add to our curriculum. I think most critical theory is on its way out and that the emerging debate-critical theory tie is a poor one. I'd rather builds tie to other sections of academia -- ones that are more strategic and respected.


 * 5. I am Aff leaning on most modern competition questions.**

If I speak this phrase:

"I think we should walk to the store"....

...and you think this is mutually exclusive with the preceding sentence:

"We should only walk to the store if armed gunmen do not line the path between here and the store"

... then I think we have very different conceptions of "mutually exclusive".

I think the defining error of the modern debate era is to think that the Aff is somehow rigidly "certain" and that allowing such certainty to be suspended for *any* reason somewhat creates a positive curriculum.


 * 6. Bad judge for normal means and process cplans**


 * 7. I the remaining questions, I am still a very good judge for the Neg.**

I think I assess risk of disads and case turns in a manner that tends to be more neg leaning than many judges in the pool.

-- Will