Crowe,+Mike

Mike Crowe Wake Forest University

Last updated: 09/02/13

I’ll vote on any argument, but remember that all arguments (even conceded ones) require a claim, at least one warrant, and an impact. As a debater, I’ve read a healthy mix of both “policy” and “critical” arguments. No matter what types of arguments you forward, it is very important that they are well-developed and that you demonstrate an understanding of the arguments you are making. I’m a very technical, flow-oriented judge. That is, I defer to the arguments I have written on my flow. If I don’t have an argument written on my flow for some reason (it was a claim without a warrant, or you were verbally unclear), then I will not evaluate that argument in my decision. For example, if the opposing team concedes an argument, do not simply repeat your claim and point out that the other team has dropped it. Rather, you should repeat your claim, concisely explain the warrant(s) behind that claim, and state the impact(s) of this concession for the rest of the debate.

__Topicality/Theory__ It is difficult to persuade me that other theory arguments outweigh topicality. The burden is on the team advancing the theory argument to prove that it’s a voting issue rather than just a reason to reject the argument in question. I think two or fewer non-contradictory advocacies for the negative is reasonable. That said, I'm more persuaded by “multiple conditional options bad” arguments than simple “conditionality bad” arguments. My interpretation of conditionality is that the status quo is an option for the negative no matter what. Therefore, if the negative wins that conditionality is legitimate and goes for a conditional advocacy in the 2NR, I will be willing to weigh the status quo against the plan.

__Counterplans/Disadvantages__ Counterplans should be both textually and functionally competitive. Textual competition means the counterplan excludes at least some of the plan text. Functional competition means the implementation of the counterplan actually differs from the plan. Any reason why textual or functional competition alone is a poor standard for evaluation is remedied by requiring both standards. Net benefits to counterplans should have a link to the plan. When it comes to disads and case turns, I’m a sucker for quality timeframe analysis. If you win a reasonable risk of the fastest extinction impact in the debate (preferably one that turns your opponent’s impacts), you're most likely in a good spot. The direction of the DA link is more important than the direction of uniqueness because the state of uniqueness typically has a greater propensity for future change than the state of the link.

__Critiques__ All teams advancing criticisms should defend a clear advocacy or framework and be able to explain how it resolves the links to the criticism. If you’re criticizing on the negative, make sure you have defense or links that implicate every part of the aff. If you’re criticizing on the affirmative, make sure you’re actually defending something. Affs debating against the critique should have to defend the 1AC.