Duckworth,+Valaria

Homewood-Flossmoor Alumni/Captain '07-'10


 * Topicality**

Topicality is the gateway issue - if the affirmative does not meet the resolution, they should lose. I defer to competing interpretations with the expectation that it will dissolve to reasonability. Between the world of the Interpretation and the world of the Counter-Interpretation, I should see the topic through two different lenses and have them impacted as to why I should prefer one over the other. Where reasonability steps in is usually where the standards and framing debate lacks clash. There is also a threshold, in certain debates, at certain points of the year, when a team's unwillingness to cut a proper case neg does not compel me to pull the trigger on topicality.

It is problematic (for all of us) when an affirmative does not claim the resolution. The inclination for negative teams to attempt to muddle through with a hyper-generic strategy or lend more weight to Framework than Topicality takes away from the function the argument is supposed to serve. Yes, "One off - T" debates suck - which is why the affirmative should lose. I see Framework and Topicality as very distinct arguments and one does not necessitate the other. My personal default - Topicality comes before Framework as an in-round, emergency stop button. So less than 3:30 on T in the 2NR is hard to move me.


 * Case/Plan Function/Affirmative Burden**

The plan is the reason we are gathered here today. It is the only position entitled fiat, where the plan "comes to be", without regard to questions of "whether" the plan will pass. Implicitly, there is no regard to "how" the plan is pass - which lends itself to compelling intrinsicness arguments on most politics flows. The line I draw between political/institutional focus trade-off disads and spending/funding trade-off disads is simply, "the money has to come from somewhere" - or there must be some explanation of a funding mechanism/payment plan/whathaveyou.

The plan text is defaultly the only language that the affirmative is bound to defending. Language/non-issue specific mindset indites at the level of specific authors doesn't compel me - they're citations. Bradley Thayer could have an authentic Nazi flag hanging from his window while ashing a Cuban cigar in the taxidermied hand of an endangered, Western gorilla [assuming he's not subject to US international commerce sanctions as he does it] - it's all irrelevant, he has great things to say about Hegemony. //Language// is distinct from //representations//. The fact that an affirmative chooses - via advantages - the ways they feel their plan will be the most persuasive/compelling/relevant is where most Kritiks will ground their links. Simply because the activity has an inflated, too-often convoluted extinction-driven impact calculus does not necessitate the affirmative ignore often relevant and crucial systemic impacts that occur below the extinction threshold.

The affirmative is bound by the resolution. [See //Topicality//]


 * Theory**

Theory is the court of fairness in debate. It asks and answers the question, "Was this argument/strategy unfair? - If so why? - Then why do they lose [or access to] this argument/this flow/this round?" It is the meta-debate. Now it mostly functions to check back advocacies - "Why is X type of CP unfair?", "Why is Y perm is unfair?", "Why is Z status unfair?".

Again, I defer to competing interpretations with the expectation that it will dissolve to reasonability. Each side of the debate should have a clear interpretation on their stance - "condo bad" vs. "condo good" does not answer the question of the rulebook we would need to address in order to pull the trigger either way.

For most teams to win on theory, I think using the specific debate as "warrants" to why this "X, Y and Z" strategy, specifically is unfair is crucial. Admitting where you're behind and why [and why it's their fault] are all necessary steps. Otherwise, the tag line, time suck voters that morph into Hail Mary's later in the debate don't move me. Lines still need to be drawn across the columns.

Theory comes after topicality. In a debate where the negative wins an affirmative is untopical, I can't conceive of a scenario where the negative could lose on theory. [All abuse is justified due to lack a resolutional plan]


 * Framework/Role of the Ballot**

In a debate where the affirmative is topical and there is no contest of fairness, Framework is weighed first. I'm not inclined to say that the affirmative or the negative [or Kritikal or policy arguments] has a higher/different threshold for Framework. A Kritikal argument does not necessitate the rejection of logical, utilitarian Framework. Many Framework debates come to "if we win role of the ballot, then we win the debate." which is uncomfortably untrue enough of the time. Impact calculus is not precluded by Framework, just structured by it.


 * Counterplans**

In the world of the counterplan, the role of the ballot is to decide between the two policy options which one solves better or offers the least risk. The ballot is not localized to a single government or institutional focus. Generally, I believe counterplans serve as a valid test of competition with the affirmative. The affirmative is bound by the resolution. The negative is not. If there is/are ways to solve affirmative harms without a resolutional focus, the neg should have access to this ground. The evidential check-back against many potentially abusive PICs and/or multi/international actor counter plans is the threshold of a solvency advocate. Most of the evidence is speculative, in a context distinct from the status quo and/or the world of the plan, with a foggy means of implementation. The theoretical check-back against many potentially abusive counter plans is [See Theory]


 * Kritiks**

A Kritik is a linear disad functioning as a net benefit a competitive option with a questionable solvency mechanism. That being said, I think they are our best method of testing systematic issues that often address the inherency of the resolution itself and the harms of the affirmative. It serves an important, ever more relevant function within our current political discourse [And Lord knows the Politics DA isn't filling that gap any time soon]. Most times when I'm voting up a Kritik I am seeing it as a straight turn to the affirmative harms, with solvency mitigated in some way - either via. the Kritik or case arguments - and am given the latitude to virtually ignore the alternative. The point where the alternative solvency loses consistently with me is the point where we ask the question, "Why is rejecting this plan, in this instance, going to **solve** the impacts of the Kritik?" Perm solves arguments are strategically persuasive to me - but the scope for perm abuse by the affirmative is widening, not shortening, and is something that I have been known to pull the trigger on [See //Theory//].


 * Performance Affirmatives**

Some of my most rewarding rounds as a policy debater were negating performance kritikal affirmatives. Competitive equity aside I believe their place in the activity is to keep us on our toes. Grant it, this does not negate or preclude the burden of the affirmative, nor will Framework outweighing Topicality be a pill I swallow easily [See //Topicality, Framework/Role of the Ballot//]. However, I believe that these arguments, as with most kritikal arguments, should be fully engaged with - and clash should be brought from both sides to both sides of the debate. To simply run through the "One off-T" shell is to ignore the debate - often unnecessarily.


 * Identity Kritiks**

By way of looking at me in the back of the room, I could appear to be predisposed/more disposed towards race and gender diversification/identity arguments. Argue what and as you will, offer a standard to evaluate the debate, and impact the within/out implications of those arguments.

My personal view on how these arguments function in the community is thus;

Attempting to reform a state/institution in any meaningful way, through the forum of competitive policy debate is at best a) an uphill battle within/amongst a community of individuals who choose, through action or inaction, to entrench themselves into whatever "-ism" is applicable and at worst, which is most problematic for me, b) a unique way to trivialize oneself as a "other", "side show" for the establishment which you are trying to kritik. In other words, by participating in the activity, and placing - or rather, relegating - one's identity to a ballot issue, I believe there is a unique disservice there at the level of the individual person that cannot be accessed the higher up the Ivory Tower you go. A well-funded, typically white/male establishment, policy debater does not have to lay Oneself on the flow as a misunderstood voter, while we are moving to an uncomfortable point where any minority/disadvantaged/female debater has to ask and answer oneself as to why they aren't running "race/ableism/gender" affs/ks, which I think should be another point of reflection.

Do there need to be more demographics, more actively and loudly represented in the debate community? Absolutely. Are gender roles uniquely and systematically problematic in this activity? Without question. Is accessibility consistent even within the activity itself, much less in any broader sense? Of course not. Are these issues that are best addressed by the debaters themselves, especially at the high school level? I don't believe so.*


 * This is distinct from saying I do not believe they have any function in round.

At the end of the day, we are a community of talkers and word-makers - to pretend as though we've had other things in the activity to focus on other than the "identity" of our debaters or our role within our extended communities is superfluous - and to ask any high school student to soft shoe for me (especially) in order to be a drop in an ocean of exclusion in such an environment is something I am uncomfortable with.

__**Generics**__


 * Evidence**

Evidence is the equipment this activity is based on. I judge a team by their evidence as one facet of their ability. Poor evidence reflects poorly on you. Too often debates come down to a "single card" - and then many evidence indicts are only fallacious, authoritative arguments along the lines of "Our girl has a PhD - Their guy has a Master's Degree - We win." [//No//.] Evidence is contextual - it's empirical, analytical, descriptive and/or predictive. No author will ever assume the "world of this debate, this disad, etc.". Updated/specific evidence compels me - it'll always be more persuasive than generic camp evidence, even if it is outlandish. There is little specific, in round, evaluative implication for evidence outside of it being directly debated and called for - but speaker points...


 * Tech Debate**

I did "papered" debate. There is a learning curve, but I do not in any way feel mandated as a judge to walk into a round with a laptop or the latest iPhone. I am leaving some breathing room in my usually militant prep policies to reflect my personal transition. However, do know, if it's getting "awkward" - I am assuming prep is being stolen, I am noticing, and I am not happy [yes, the glare is intentional and directed at you]. Teams who do not include all of their evidence in whatever forum the group is using I assume is cheating. My theoretical threshold on this is very low.


 * Speaker Points**

Having been off the national circuit for a number of years and being a new judge will be factors as to why I might not be in line with whatever scale any given team may be used to. I did competitive speech and theater, which admittedly means I allow a broader since of 'ethos' into the public speaking element of the activity. I use 25 - 30, which functionally works out to 26 and 29.5. 27.5 is "average". 25s are reserved for when I find a competitor overwhelmingly offensive/rude/obnoxious/disruptive/etc. I have given a round of 3 out of 4 25s because the language used in the debate was so racist and politically incorrect I couldn't stand it. I have to give a decision within a binary - speaker points are where I as a judge reflect on an individual competitor.

____________ As a judge, I have "tells" - the blank "poker face" hasn't set in yet. I don't see a mandate for the audience feedback mechanism of this public speaking activity being turned "off". It would be wise to use whatever evidence at your disposal - including that which the judge provides - to win a ballot.

That being said - I'm not laughing at you.