Cass,+Corbin

I think that debaters have an obligation to establish a coherent framework for the evaluation of any argument within the debate round. By virtue of convention, if an alternative framework for evaluation is not at least implicitly established, I will default to the tradition value/criterion model and evaluate arguments through that lens. This does not mean that I am not open to topicality, arguments that disprove the resolution on a logical pre-standards level (often referred to as an aprioris), critiques, long disadvantages or off case in general.

I think that if won and properly established theory operates as the supreme voting mechanism within the round. As a result I hold debaters to a high standard not only in their original theory shells but also in their use of these arguments in rebuttals. I hold theory arguments to a more rigorous standard than that other arguments. I am open to arguments about why I should not evaluate close or difficult theory debates. Sometimes if neither debater is winning clear offense on the theory debate I will defer to another level of the flow, especially if there are arguments made as to why the theory debate is irresolvable ect.

Theory shells should have an interpretation of debate or a word/phrase, a violation of how the opponent violates that interpretation, reasons why one ought to prefer that definition (an internal link) and then a vote that tells me why either fairness or education should constrain/control my ballot. [For example, ‘Fairness is a gateway issue so it constrains the evaluation of substance] would be an insufficient development of a fairness voter in the original shell. Most theory arguments are open to internal debate about, which side controls a strong link story to fairness or education.

I will listen to general critiques of theory although I would prefer something specific to your opponent’s particular theory argument. If a critique operates at a discursive level (for example, if someone employs gendered or racist language, it can easily be weighted against a large amount of theory on a non theory level. One can easily against weigh topicality arguments with discursive by showing the larger importance of reject racist/sexist language that accepting unfair practices.

Critiques require frameworks that establish why I am ought to vote for this in the round: whether establishing the framework for a discursive critique or simply the parameters for a judges interaction with the critique, a significant portion of the original speech ought to be devoted to explaining the role of the criticism within the round. I prefer case specific critiques and links rather than generic or resolutional links. Your critique needs to establish the implication of adopting the affirmative rhetoric, ideology or ontology. For this to operate as more than a simple disadvantage to the status quo, critiques should have some sort of functioning alternative that escapes theses implications. I am also open to listening to critiques that operate at denying the truth-value of the resolution, especially if they operate within a truth-testing framework established by the affirmative. However I do think LD resolutions have a normative aspect and find a number of objections to the skeptic to be persuasive.

To win a critique in front of me, one must establish a framework for how it operates within the round, win a clear link story to the affirmative case, out weigh any possible affirmative offense against the critique and clearly explain how your alternative allows the critique to operate as more than a non-unique disadvantage to the status quo.

Off-case whether disadvantages to affirming, counter-plans, or ‘pre-standards’ arguments need to have a well established mechanism for evaluation. ‘Pre-standards’ arguments that originate out of the logic of the affirmative or negative case I find to be must more persuasive than generically written arguments.

The current resolution Sept/Oct asks for the affirmative debate to establish a permissibility test for killing one innocent for the stake of saving others. It seems then that most debate ought to revolve around a standard or weighing mechanism that decides between two moral theories rather than one that already assumes a moral theory.

For an argument to be an argument it must have a claim a warrant and an impact in each speech: changing the impact of an argument changes its function and your opponent ought to be allowed to respond to that change in function even if they previously dropped the argument.

Please write my ballot for me, establish voting issues in the 2 NR and 2 AR that tell me how to sign my ballot and why. Be sure to spend ample time crystallizing the round that does not mean repeating arguments but establishing their role and function in my decision as a judge. I am open to any style of debate, if flowing on my laptop speed should not be a problem. If you are not clear, I will yell clear maybe once or twice, if you do not fix it after that I will stop listening to your speech.

Please compare arguments and explain how they function within the round at ever level of the flow (framework, standards and contention). Please extend arguments (to extend an argument still requires a claim a warrant and an impact. Compare and weight your offense against your opponent’s offense. I usually pay a lot of attention to CX and find it important. I will assume CX is binding unless arguments are made otherwise. Juvenile strategic mistakes and obviously counter educational strategies will negatively impact your speaker points.