Parkinson,+Alex

Debate Background – I debated 4 years at Olathe Northwest in Kansas and I am now finishing my third year of debate for Harvard.

First: As you’ll notice throughout this philosophy, I don’t have any real solid biases. I guess I tend to lean particular ways on some issues, but I can be persuaded differently on all of them. I think that it’s silly for someone to suggest that they don’t have any biases towards particular arguments. I think that the job of a good judge is to attempt to set aside those biases, and let you all settle it out.

Second: If anything isn’t covered in this philosophy, just ask me about it before the round. Sorry if that cuts into your pre-round prep. I’ll do my best to make this as clear and comprehensive as possible.

Third: Be nice. I've noticed that a lot of judges I like to get have this written in their philosophy and they issue some threat that has a deterrent effect on the debaters and everyone ends up being nicer. So here's my threat: if you are brutally mean I will start knocking off speaker points at a rapid rate. That doesn't mean you can't be aggressive, just don't be mean for the sake of being mean or trying to come off as superior/cool/etc.

Fourth: Cross-X is super important. There's nothing better than a great cross-x-er. I've seen some devastation happen particularly in the 2AC cross-x of the 2NC. Don't take cross-x for granted.

Topicality – I think that this is area that may be hurt by my lack of experience on this topic. I’m not very familiar with the literature in this resolution, nor have I evaluated a topicality debate. I’m certainly willing to listen to a T debate, but it needs to be very clearly explained. In general, I have no problem voting for topicality. I’ll default to a competing interpretations framework, but can be persuaded that reasonability may be preferable for debate. I think that Ks of T, or attempting to impact turn T, are generally silly arguments. I’ll listen to them, but I’ll have a high threshold for persuasion.

Counterplans / Disads–I have no real preferences here. I think that the negatives counterplan(s) should probably be conditional (I’ll explain that more below). I think the 2NR should always get the status quo as a logical option. There is not “always a risk” of a DA or advantage in the absence of offense. I think that offense/defense is a good paradigm up to a point. However, if I can’t imagine a plausible world in which a DA/advantage would happen, I’m comfortable saying that there’s no risk.

K’s – I’ll vote on a K, but I’m probably not the best judge to have the back of the room for this kind of debate. I think that a real solid K debate is one in which the negative draws some specific link warrants out of their evidence to the affirmative. I think that this is not only an effective strategy in burying the 1AR with a link wall, but I think it will also help me as judge. As far as framework issues go, my general feeling is that the affirmative should get to defend the plan and that negatives should get their kritik impacts. Now, that's simply my 2A feeling. I can certainly be persuaded differently. I would have no problem voting for reps first, should the negative win that argument.

Theory – I suppose I err negative on theory. I think that the negative should get to do ALMOST (see below) anything they want to. I have this bias for two reasons: first, the affirmative generally gets to set the tone of the debate; second, and crucially, the affirmative gets to talk last. Having said that, I can be persuaded differently. I said 'almost' above because I hate consult counterplans. I think that they are stupid, and not competitive. The aff would have to do very little to get me to buy that consult counterplans are bad. Having said that, the aff does have to make the baseline consult bad arguments, and debate it out. Finally, and importantly, I'll say that I've never heard a persuasive reason that theory is a reason to reject the team and not just the argument. I understand that sometimes the 2AR is in a tough spot and needs to go for theory, but I'd be wary.