Bess+Jeff

Jeff Bess Third year debating at Missouri State University Updated 11/4/12

General: - I __will__ always vote for the team that I believe has won the debate based on the arguments presented in the speeches - I __want__ to vote for debaters that are hardworking, strategic, thoughtful and funny- this will be reflected in speaker points - Fortune favors the bold

Topicality: - Reasonability means the aff's counterinterp makes for a sustainable topic/solves for most of the neg's offense - The neg must win a clear violation and substantial offense that proves their interp sets the best limit on the resolution - I have a soft spot for T as a strategic option- I will not protect your "high speed rail aff" just because it "feels" topical if you are truly getting worked on T

Counterplans: - I will not assume that I can kick the cp for you after the debate unless the 2NR makes this explicit- the 2AR gets a response - Theory arguments and permutations "should" be able to defeat "all of the plan" counterplans- reality betrays the sadly aspirational nature of this statement - Conditionality is good but I can respect the necessity of conditionality bad as a last resort for a desperate affirmative team or in particularly egregious cases //- I cannot imagine an instance where perm theory is a reason to reject the team//

Critiques: - Neg K teams win by (1) beating "case outweighs," (2) solving the case/making it irrelevant, (3) other tricks - Aff teams against the K win by (1) winning the case/outweighing the K, (2) attacking alt solvency, (3) not missing the tricks

Critical affs: - I am amenable to negative topicality arguments against critical affs - For "framework" to be persuasive it should function as a topicality argument- the Boggs DA is distinct - Critical affs that do not defend the resolution can be strategic but should be prepared to engage framework as a topicality argument and should have offense that applies to the negative's T interpretation

Disadvantages/Advantages: - "Uniqueness first" and inane impact distinctions have become too central to modern debate- that being said: - Controlling the frame for how I evaluate the components of the advantage/disad is important and will be rewarded - If there is no link there is no link - "Try or die" (if it is actually try or die) is very persuasive

Other: - I am skeptical of the "low point win"- this is because of what I think speaker points are meant to signify and not how I will evaluate the winner of the debate - I will read evidence after the debate but I will make a conscious effort to reward teams that control spin and not to let your evidence do the debating for you