Burk,+Chris

Chris Burk

Christopher Burk Director of Debate, University of Texas at Dallas District III / CEDA South Central Region Years Coaching College Debate: 10

General Issues: Arguments need to have warrants. I like rounds that revolve around compelling evidence and warranted arguments. A few good, thick cards with warrants brought together with a coherent story will (almost) always beat a dozen weak cards or a dozen blippy analytic arguments. Cards that are highlighted down to next-to-nothing get very little weight from me; cards must at least form a complete sentence. Why even read a card that is less than ten words? Source indicts, date comparisons and comparisons of authors’ qualifications and interests/biases are welcome. I tend to read cards after the round. Second, I highly prefer traditional presentations in debate rounds. I will flow one and only one speaker during a speech. I will flow arguments to the best of my ability and use my flow to help make a decision at the end of the round. I will abide by the time limits of the tournament. I will give one win and one loss. Third, CX is a lost art and it’s crucial to your speaker points. Be very careful about your answers in CX since I strongly believe that CX answers are binding. Be prepared to give straightforward answers. Fourth, neither fabricating evidence nor clipping cards is acceptable and I take each very seriously. Stealing prep is not cool and will hurt your points. Fifth, I hope that debaters (and coaches) have fun and show respect for each other and the activity. Let’s all be passionate about the issues but please try to refrain from nasty personal attacks. Sixth, I try to give verbal and non-verbal feedback during the round. I encourage you to pay attention to my reactions. If I find your speaking to be unclear, I’ll indicate that verbally. I will quit flowing if you continue to be unclear. Otherwise, speed is expected and demonstrating technical proficiency is crucial to speaker points. Finally, I tend to rely on my own biases when evaluating impacts unless otherwise directed. Such biases include death is bad, strong coffee is good, pain is bad, racism is bad, freedom is good, a nuclear war is worse than a conventional war, etc. If you want to argue otherwise then you should read good impact cards. I’ve never voted for Malthus, Spark, or Wipeout (and only once for Normativity). I hope to keep those trends going but I’ll vote on almost anything if a team clearly wins it.

Topicality: Unless argued otherwise, the basic issue for me is a fair division of ground with some predictability and educational value. Affirmatives should have a central statement that will remain stable and that they will defend. This statement (usually a plan) needs to relate to the given topic. The Negative generally needs to prove that the plan/project would only be allowed under an interpretation of the topic (or debate as an activity) that is too large, too unfair, and/or too unpredictable for the Negative. Like other arguments, topicality arguments should be well developed. Shallow violations barked out in ten seconds of the 1NC and extended for 20 seconds during the 1NR are not effective – they are just annoying. ASPEC is basically useless, I barely flow it, and I have never voted on it.

Disadvantages and Case Arguments: This topic has lots of good ones and the debaters should make use of them. I will vote on Proliferation Good, Politics, and other old-fashioned “policy” arguments with no problem. Uniqueness can be important, but the direction of the link tends to matter more. Affirmatives should be able to explain their case arguments, not just extend the 1AC evidence. Probabilities of the link, internal link, and impact are important, as are the magnitudes of the impacts. The rounds I tend to enjoy the most are those that focus on case arguments and disadvantages.

Kritiks/Critiques: I’m very traditional on form (see above) but I’m ready to listen to various types of content. If you’re better at debating kritiks then you should not be afraid to run those in front of me. Have a link (or more than one) and explain your implications. Alternatives are often useful but the requirement of having one is up for debate. The more non-traditional your arguments get, the less I will understand you and the less leeway you get. Run what you want but don’t expect to automatically understand every five-syllable word you say. I’ll listen and try to be fair. Also, rounds involving kritikal arguments should be very clear about the implications of terms like “perm” and “turn.” It is often debatable how perms and turns function in rounds where non-traditional arguments are under consideration so the debaters should be sure to fully explain the implications these arguments. Finally, offensive language is not nice but I generally believe that a basic, sincere apology is sufficient put the issue to rest.

Counterplans: Are often crucial to the Negative. The text of the counterplan should be written out and available to the affirmative team. Perms should also be written out. And, by the way, don’t even think about altering the text of your plan, counterplan, or perm after it has been spoken. As I mentioned above, I prefer strong evidence. In regard to counterplans, that means specific solvency cards and advocates. An example: The statement that “there’s no reason why Bolivia cannot do the plan” is not a strong reason why Bolivia can solve the case. There’s almost no chance that an affirmative team will have good solvency attacks to an international agent counterplan when original solvency evidence for the agent does not exist. That is a ridiculous research burden on the affirmative. This type of problem is common to many plan-inclusive and plan-exclusive counterplans. So, basically, I tend to have a bias towards the affirmative on most counterplan theory issues. But make your theory arguments and have them make sense (not one-line blips), give them an impact, and I’ll give a fair hearing to them. I also recognize that sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do when you are Negative (especially when confronted with a new case).