Smith,+Ross

Ross Smith, Wake Forest University, 20+ years judging, lotsa rounds this year Read Tim O’Donnell’s philosophy statement.. Read my posts on edebate archives. Paradigm. I know the term has fallen into disuse, but the perspective I find easiest to use to judge a debate is one which sees the debate as a request by the affirmative for my endorsement of a decision by those in a position to do the affirmative plan to do the affirmative plan. There, that confused you. Try this: should the affirmative plan be desired by those who would be deciding to do it? OK, by now you should have recognized the “plan focus.” What you may be unfamiliar with is the notion of perspective. Simply put, what may seem good from one perspective may seem bad from another. But in a debate, we have a binary opposition (according to the rules). Presumptions: here’s another old-fashioned term. The paradigm above can be seen as one basic presumption. Another is that topicality is a voting issue. A third is that the affirmative has the burden of proof with regard to answering the question that the paradigm poses. Corollary Presumptions: This list flows from the basic presumptions, and is handy: 1) A “debatable” plan is not necessarily a topical one. If there is not reasonable definitional support for a plan’s topicality, then it is not topical. On the affirmative side of this same coin, just because an affirmative interpretation may not be preferred according to some aesthetic standard does not mean that it is an unacceptable interpretation. 2) Plan-inclusive counterplans are ok. 3) Conditional counterplans are ok. 4) International, states, tribes, and, to a lesser extent, other federal agents counterplans are suspect. 5) The affirmative must have an advantage or must have turned a disad. The advantage must be unique. 6) If the best policy at the end of the round includes the entire aff. plan, then the aff. wins. 7) A plan is an agent undertaking a course of action. 8) Theory is not a voting issue against the neg. The only questions that presumptively precede the question of the plan’s desirability seem to be a) did the aff defend a topical plan that was specific enough and unconditional, and b) did either team behave so offensively as to warrant a loss? 9) These presumptions can be overcome by force of argument. But the argument has to have reasons for me to believe it. Just because you assert that “X skews time” why should that persuade me? Some other potentially helpful comments: 1) I have heard some “disad” shells so poorly developed as to warrant no 2AC response. 2) I am not particularly fond of the Bush disad for theoretical and “real-world” reasons. 3) I have voted frequently for the Bush disad and for the “suspect” counterplans. 4) Assess your intelligibility by watching me and my flow. If I’m not writing much, you have a problem. 5) I usually take a very good flow. Debaters often do not. 6) “Try or die” and “The disad is unique and unturned” are amusing statements in which affirmatives cloak, “We have no solvency but vote for us anyway” and negatives cloak, “Who needs a link?” 7) Junk theory args seem to proliferate recently. This garbage and garbage “it’s a voting issue” are getting less and less persuasive daily. 8) For want of better, I frequently must use the link x impact= A>B formula. It makes a big difference then if the link is 1% vs 10% or the impact is 10 vs 100. How many units is the impact of a “nuc war, juhdge”? 9) I have voted for kritiks, discourse affs, and other weird stuff too often. I am trying to cut down. But usually there are no useful criteria established for how to evaluate and compare (or even identify) “speech acts.” If the aff or neg does not defend the paradigm I outline above. . .Oh well. 10) C-X time ends for me when the timer stops. So prioritize your use of that time. 11) "What is the question we are trying to answer in this debate?" is the key to winning when performativity and discourse jumps in. I vote for K's most when aff can't defend focus on plan desirability. Bottom line: I am an “expert” on only one thing, debate. It is easier to persuade me about subjects other than debate than it is to change my mind about debate. Too many people lose my ballot because they do not defend against attacks on my presumptions.