Fine,+Todd

Todd Fine The Bronx High School of Science Rounds Judged This Year: 40+

Kritiks: As Scott Deatherage says, LINK, LINK, and more LINK. They say "UNIQUENESS," you say "LINK." They say "PERMUTATION," you say "LINK." I'm not so excited by discussions about the nature of reality, representational images or the hip new philosopher from Slovakia, unless there is some substantial connection with the plan. Where does the 1AC evidence invoke this hateful discourse? Why is the affirmative a particularly egregious example of this "critical" observation about politics? How could the Kritik turn the case? How does it take-out the case? I do think that the Kritik serves an important function. The Kritik's rise to power has given solvency turns the respect and extra umph they needed to get more ballots. Much of the critical literature is extremely relevant and insightful. So by all means run them. But give me a debate, and not some emotional appeal or philosophy lesson.

Also, while this might initially seem contradictory with the thrust of the above, I don't think you have to dress up your alternative as a counterplan. If you can suggest a different vision of how we should approach the affirmative "problem," even if you don't have all the answers yet, I think you have provided a valid reason to negate the plan. But I do need to be convinced that the plan would be a net negative option, and your LINK arguments need to be strong enough to prove that it would interfere with the reconceptualization, rethinking process.

Topicality: I don't only see Topicality as an argument; I look at it as the social process by how the debate community determines what it hopes to discuss over the year. I see a negative ballot as a sanction that should presumably affect the cases people choose to run. In that sense, the context of the round and the relative popularity of the case are important factors for me. I am less concerned about definitions of words than I am about the debaters actively discussing the type of debates and cases that would be enabled by different interpretations. It is extremely important that the debaters list the cases the different interpretations would permit and discuss their educational and competitive merits. I don't necessarily see underlimiting as a problem in of itself. I am more bothered when the cases enabled by the topic interpretation are uniquely unfair or without educational value.

Evidence: Evidence is both important and insignificant. When a debater relies on evidence to express a given point, I may check the evidence and in lieu of independent analysis made by the two sides, I will accord high weight to its quality in deciding a given point. However, independent analysis by the debaters is paramount. If, in a given dispute, one side effectively communicates the warrants in its evidence, while the other side fails to, I will not compensate by examining the evidence regardless of its purported excellence. If both sides articulate the warrants and reach an impasse, the quality of the evidence may break the tie. I absolutely don't mind and actively encourage uncarded arguments. The best link arguments for many disadvantages are often not carded because writers cannot always imagine the loopy plans that come up in debate. Be firm and energetically defend your uncarded arguments as the truth, and I will give them substantial weight. Also be creative in forwarding what might seem to be tangential or unrelated evidence as support for your arguments. So long as the story makes sense and is firmly defended, the support doesn't have to be perfect.

Overviews: I find round and argument overviews very important. Debates are dramas and arguments are stories, and overviews are the best places to narrate. And the obvious must be stated because debaters still forget: ten seconds of impact analysis often will decide the round.

Counterplans: Personally, I tend to tilt negative on Counterplan theory, but as I said with Topicality, I think theory arguments should be seen as the social mechanism for debaters to negotiate what is acceptable and what is not. So I will listen to defiant and strong pleas about things like conditionality, pics, etc. Everything is affected by the context. If the case is NATO expansion, a NATO consultation counterplan seems fair. If it is Expand Americorps, Consult Australia seems a bit of a stretch. The debaters need to take their gut feelings about what is fair, and try to develop standards which are as reasonable and universally applicable as possible.

Another odd thing... I have noticed that there are a number of arguments that others laugh at that I consider very valid. Inherency, Plan Vagueness, "Plan Flaws" are a few of note. Although sloppy plan-writing sometimes can often facilitate effective negative counterplans, when a plan is so illogical or vague that it makes intelligent debate impossible, I think there needs to be some kind of sanction.

I also despise the following expressions:

"We'll //always// win..." "The Dobbs evidence //indicates...//" "We beat them last week on Agamben, and now they're gonna lose again."