Siegmann,+Joseph


 * Rounds on Topic: 0**
 * Updated October, 2009**
 * OVERVIEW -** Debate is about making arguments and providing better warrants to support their arguments than their opponents. As a general matter, I do not really care what arguments are presented in front of me regardless of how offensive some may find a particular argument. If you explain to me that a particular genocide is overall a good thing…I would vote for you. To me, debate is about defending positions regardless of whether you believe in them.

I do have my own biases but so long as you do a good job explaining your arguments and warrants my biases are easily overcome.

I tend to give deference to new cross-applications as long as they were pretty obvious. For example, if the affirmative has a prolif advantage and the negative runs a disad with a prolif impact the 2nr stating that the disad turns the case or the 2ar stating the case solves the impact of the disad are not new. However, the later it occurs the less weight it will probably be given.


 * EVIDENCE –** I am a fan of logical analysis and do not think that evidence is always necessary to win an argument, however, there are some instances where evidence is important. For example, unless you are a pollster you probably need evidence to assert Obama’s popularity is X%. Also, unless you are an expert in Iranian politics it would behoove you to read evidence from an expert describing how Iran will respond.

There are some other limitations on analysis. After the round I will only read evidence, not your analysis. The quality of evidence is also important. Quality does not necessarily mean long, just a claim and a warrant that is well explained.

Qualifications will be considered if made an issue or if there is a glaring discrepancy in qualifications between two authors.


 * IMPACTS -** I have not been involved in debate for a couple years, but in my experience impact calculus and impact analysis is the most ignored part of any debate. I get it – you want to win a link and uniqueness to the disad, but the greater the disad’s impact, the lower the threshold of a link I need to vote for on the disad. However, need to win some chance of a link so do not completely ignore the link debate.

Nuclear wars are not all the same. If you cannot explain why a US-Russian nuclear war would be worse than an India-Pakistan nuclear war I am probably not the judge for you.

Things like “humanitarian crisis”, “nuclear proliferation”, and “economic decline” are internal links, not impacts (unless you do some fantastic analysis). Unless you are making deontological arguments I would hope that your impact is more quantifiable than those referenced above.

If you do not do the impact calculation, I will. Half the people in the round will not be happy with me making the impact calculation. I am also lazy, so the easier you make it to vote for you the more likely it is I will vote for you.


 * IMPACT TURNING** - Do it, so long as it is consistent with the rest of your strategy.


 * THEORY –** Slow down when making theory arguments. If I can’t write it down, I will probably not vote on it at the end of the round. I tend to give a deference to the negative on CP and critique theory. Specificity of abuse is always more persuasive. I tend to believe conditionality and process CPs (e.g. consult NATO) are more likely to be abusive.


 * TOPICALITY -** Slow down when making theory arguments. If I can’t write it down, I will probably not vote on it at the end of the round. I tend to give deference to the affirmative on questions of topicality.


 * SPEED and CLARITY** – I have a decent flow. If I can’t understand you I will say “clear”. If the problem continues to persist I will give up. You or your partner should occasionally look at me to make sure this is not a problem.


 * CRITIQUES –** I was not a philosophy major. I have not been in debate for a couple years. While I have a general understanding of most critiques I do not know what is currently in vogue nor am I likely familiar with the terminology. Just like any other argument, if I do not understand it I will not vote for you. I think this is true for critiques more than other arguments because they involve complicated philosophical arguments and terms of art that I am less likely to be familiar with. If you cannot explain your critique without terms like “post-phenomenology hermeneutics” you should strike me - sorry.


 * SPEAKER POINTS –** I believe that most speakers deserve between a 27 and 29 speaker points. I think that higher than a 29 equates to about the top 5% of speakers. Each speaker will be evaluated on their position. So yes, that means that the 1ac and 1nc will be evaluated more on clarity and style than other speeches. Be courteous and nice. Being a jerk will not help you. Your language cannot really offend me, however, if the other side believes you are being offensive they may request a reduction in speaker points. I can imagine a world in which in-round language actions result in a loss, but the much more likely scenario is a reduction of speaker points (please remember that I can also imagine a world where everyone is made out of skittles).


 * CROSS-EXAMINATION**– I may write down some notes during cross-examination. I consider statements and clarifications made in cross-examination to be binding, such as the conditionality of a counterplan. However, arguments made in cross-examination must still be presented in a speech.