Buscho,+Robert

Robert J. Buscho, J.D.

1. General and synoptic comments. For me, writing a judging philosophy is problematic on at least three levels. First, for some, it may be little better than a forensic Rorschach test. See W. Empson, Seven Types of Ambiguity (New York: New Directions, 1947). Second, there’s the danger of a form of the Hawthorne effect - I may have the audacity to try to follow what I write. Third, there’s the danger the “philosophy” is little more than over-generalized, long-winded statements of “likes” and “dislikes,” which, outside a debate round, have little to no intrinsic meaning. I’ll try to keep this brief. Here’s what I try to do during each round to which I am assigned: a) I try to be present, b) I try to listen carefully, c) I compare and evaluate what appear to be the final rhetorical positions of each side of the debate, and d) I weigh or assay those positions to determine which side did the proverbial “better job of debating.” I think it’s OK for teams to ask me about specifics prior to the round so long as no attempt is being made to “pre-condition” my ballot. For those into labels or schools of thought, I tend to consider myself a policy analyst with a heightened appreciation for kritikal argument (although my critics say I’m just a hypothesis tester with a heightened appreciation for policy argument). In all respects, however, I try very hard to be a non-interventionalist judge, meaning I try insofar as I’m able to let the in-round participants frame and stage the debate. If sides want me to assume a particular standard for decision or framework for decision and provide me with sufficient warrants, that’s what I’ll do. After all, it’s your debate; I’m just the critic. I’ve been judging high school and university debate for over ten (10) years, and I debated in high school with marginal success and with greater success in college at University of California - Riverside. I won tournaments at Lewis & Clark College, University of Oregon, University of San Francisco (twice), the California Governor’s Cup and advanced to quarterfinals at Junior College Nationals. I had lots of fun debating. I want the participants in the rounds I critic to have fun, too. One of my former debate partners, Kirk Knutsen, gave a talk on the “Psychology of Winning” which I highly comment to your viewing at vimeo.com/5646348. It’s especially important to emphasize that I try to be “present” during the debate and am actively listening. It’s constantly amazing to me to see how much I pick up on non-verbal communications during rounds. Here are some other comments more specifically targeted for your consideration.

2. Topicality. When I debated, T was “the last refuge of the damned.” I still adhere (somewhat) to that point of view, and I still rarely ballot on T, and usually do so when the aff. mishandles some response. “Reasonable,” for me, means rhetorically defensible. I reject the position that reasonability is subjective (and even if it is that just turbo-charges the position that language is unstable). I also categorically reject arguments based on some need to limit research burdens or promote education. If you don’t want to research, don’t do policy debate. I also think that the educational benefits of debate take place in the library or on the ‘Net (no, not the “adult” sites) and that the round is the stage upon which the education is performed.

3. Extra - T. Here, I tend to give a little more love. While I will respect plan provisions that are “in furtherance of” the resolution, I will strike plan provisions with little tethering to the language of the resolution and benefits arising from those provisions.

4. Kritical argument. I do enjoy good kritical argument and debates. I don’t see very many of them. I was fortunate to have been an English major when deconstruction was expanding beyond Yale and UC-Irvine and so I’ve read a lot of kritical literature. I consider kritical argument as potentially a meta-critic of affirmative philosophy or ideological underpinnings or as a form of solvency take-out or a formally defective disadvantage (aff.. makes things worse, etc.). I have voted for “pure” kritiks (i.e., the meta-critical argument without alts or preferred reality) and I have balloted against “pure” critics based upon the lack of alts. Positing kritiks as a form of solvency take-out or formally defective D/A tends to be less risky with me, but I expect to see some type of impact analysis hopefully buttressed with evidence to allow me to evaluate it. I also enjoy aff-side kritiks but stress the need for impact analysis and evidence to permit proper evaluation. I also enjoy debates where the value of kritiks is joined in argument. I think too many affirmatives respond to kritiks with questionable and risky framework arguments and some criticism of a kritik’s position and overlook what I consider more straight-forward responses challenging the particular kritik and the value/impact of the kritik in the particular debate round.

5. Counterplans. My standards for evaluating counterplans is still evolving. My initial position was the traditional one: counterplans had to be 1) non-topical, 2) exclusive/competitive, 3) at least partially solvent of aff harms, and 4) net beneficial. I now ballot on occasion for topical counterplans, my preference is that the counterplan be exclusive/competitive in the sense that it would be dumb to do both aff and c-plan at the same time, I expect evidence or at least extensive analysis demonstrating at least partial solvency (I rarely buy counter-plans which merely “jack” the aff.’s solvency evidence or analysis), and I believe I can ballot for counterplans on the net benefit analysis so long as there is some comparative advantage to the counterplan over the aff. for at least that portion of harm which the c-plan is supposed to solve. With that said, those burdens are on the negative to establish at the same preponderance of evidence standard which affs assume. I also understand the current trend of theory is to limit negatives to a single counterplan. So long as a team can handle the theory arguments and is comfortable running the strategy, I have no problem dealing with multiple c-plans in a given round. (Parenthetically, I don’t have problems, either, with alternative justification affirmatives, so long as the debaters get the theory behind what they are doing and can defend the positions). I’m a big fan of some process-oriented c-plans such as study, study and delay, and referendum c-plans and I commend those possible positions for your consideration.

6. Evidence. As a lawyer, and especially as a trial lawyer, I’m highly focused on the role of evidence in debates. Accepting that the lack of foundation objection would likely be cured if speech times were increased, I remain concerned about certain sources, and necessarily the quality of evidence used in rounds. I commend to round participants setting up an evidentiary overview, evidence standards, or evidence framework to address these issues. I don’t really want to arbitrate each piece of evidence in each round, but I also recognize that some evidentiary sources and evidentiary tributaries are qualitatively superior to others, and I invite debaters to explore this issue, keeping an open mind as to source and quality in any particular round. I don’t want to invite evidence “challenges” but I want to encourage critical thinking about the evidence used in each round, its source and the weight I should or should not give to certain sources or types of evidence. These are fruitful and potentially determinative RFDs.

7. Concluding observations. I’m happy to discuss my RFDs in a particular round after the round has concluded and am fairly firm as to my decisions. With the exception of the past academic year I have sat on the panel deciding the final qualifier for NFL in the relevant district. I have not “sat out” or dissented from an elimination round panel in the past four (4) years; I’ve “sat out” or dissented from an elimination panel twice in the past six (6) years.