Culpepper,+Brent

Pace Academy
The most important message to garner from this philosophy is that I have not judged a single debate on this topic since camp debates. I feel confident that the topic and debates have evolved in such a way that those debates are of little use to me when establishing my familiarity with the topic. So it is of vital importance that you not assume that I am aware of any nuances that you have taken for granted throughout the year. That being said, I have several proclivities and biases that you may wish to be aware of before allowing me to judge you. I try and put forth my best effort to decide the debates that occur based that the arguments presented by both teams although I’m sure I fail to achieve this task in various debates.

Here is the way I tend to view certain debate issues:

Critiques/Performance Debates: I start with this because this is where I am the least comfortable judging debates. I am familiar to an extent with some critical theory but am by no means an expert.

For the negative, I am much more sympathetic to critique ground and believe it can be a valuable tool in a 2N’s arsenal. However, Critiques must either win that the alternative solves (or resolves) the affirmative at some level – If you concede the affirmative advantages and fail to call them into question and do not have an alternative that solves them then it will be difficult for you to win. That being said – certainly arguments can be made that would lead me to disregard the affirmative advantages. However, those arguments are often difficult given the presumed specificity of the affirmative’s evidence and the generic nature of most K cards.

For the affirmative, I believe that unless otherwise persuaded the debate is about resolving whether the plan is preferable to the Status Quo or a competitive policy option. I believe the affirmative should defend the implementation of the plan – not just the plan as some transient moment in time that ruptures all of international politics as only your plan could. There has also been an unfortunate trend among affirmatives to merely say all of debate is bad, rules are bad and Topicality is nothing more than the Holocaust reincarnated. I find all three of these claims to not just border but embrace the limitless abyss of absurdity. If you find the debate community to be beyond salvation then I strongly encourage you to find another activity worth your while and not continue to disrupt my ability to enjoy what you consider the root cause of all violence. That being said, debate is ultimately about those debating and not me thus I will attempt to remain an objective evaluator. The only time this goes away is if you ask me to become a part of debate or ask my ballot to send a message. If you do this then I will not endorse something I do not politically believe in. If the ballot is merely a telling of wins and losses then I will remain objective.

This does not mean that critical affirmatives are not cool. Many critical affirmatives claim advantages off of a topical plan and that is a valuable argument choice of which I often find incredibly strategic.

Topicality – Topicality is ultimately about establishing a fair division of predictable ground that ensures each team has access to a constructive debate. This means that my default is not the most limiting interpretation but typically a reasonable interpretation by the affirmative that provides the best vision of debate is sufficient.

Theory – Arguments require a certain level of logical coherence before I will regard them as arguments and thus relevant to a decision. Many theory arguments fail to do this when they are blippy and ill explained. Conditionality is almost always ok as well as PICS, Agent CPs etc….Although when your back is against the wall do what must be done. Consultation counterplans are only competitive to me in a world where the answer is No. In a world where the answer is yes, then it seems as though the permutation is plan plus.

CP/DA/Case Strategy – Sounds Good.

Cross-Examination – This is a vital portion of debates and can direct the outcome of a decision if done correctly. Do not merely use it as preparation time for your partner.

Speaker Points – Two major factors that can increase speaker points are good C/X’s and high evidence quality. They can also decrease speaker points.

Everything that I have said above are my biases. I don’t believe I left anything of note out. However, remember that the object of debate is to WIN. When facing another team that you will need to upset or what have you – do what you think gives you the best chance at winning. Just understand that what I’ve written above can affect the ability of certain arguments to be persuasive to me. At the end of the day, remember that while for some this is your last high school tournament, don’t get so caught up in it that you fail to spend time hanging out with the friends you have made. That may even beat out winning as your first priority.