Elliott,+Scott

Director of Debate, University of Louisiana

Debating and coaching Experience: 30 years. Rounds judged: over 1,000. On this Topic: About 20. Currently the DOD and coach of the University of Louisian NDT/CEDA Program. Directed the Louisiana Debate Institute CX Division on the Poverty Topic.

In my world, the resolution is the locus of debate and the affirmative has burden to prove the resolution is worth supporting in whole, or through operationalization (e.g. a plan). How you choose to defend the resolution is up to you. If you want to complain about the topic or the nature of debate, go to the next Business meeting and submit an Amendment to the constitution. Kritiks-better offer a counter-plan or an alternative to go with it. No alt probably means we are locked into the status quo....so it better function a as case turn. I think fiat is an illusion, but it is a necessary illusion when evaluating opportunity costs versus benefits. That means the merits of the affirmative proposal will often be weighed against the merits of the Kritik--in most cases. I have noticed that Kritikal affirmatives are winning my ballot on framework primarily because the negative does not go for the framework debate correctlyy, or deeply, enough to win. Seems to me that nine times out of ten, if you lose framework, you are going to lose access to all of your disads. So, you might as well sin boldly and explain why cheating (sorry, alternative viewpoints that always seem to massively favor the K-aff) in debate is bad. On the other hand, if you think you can win that a policymaking framework is best in front of me by chanting "policy debate good, metaphysics bad," five times fast...you are going to be sorely disappointed. Given that this topic is relatively boring (wow...another accidental nuclear war scenario)and that the Obama Administration is about to do most of your plans, the issue of how we debate is perhaps the most important issue facing this community. I think it affects my life more than the dreaded risk of German Proliferation. Counter-plans. Run 'em if ya got them. Conditionality and dispo are debatable, but I doubt I will pull the trigger unless the negative runs two or more counter-plans (or K's and c-plans) that are inconsistent, forcing the affirmative to run inconsistent answers. Usually, if the negative runs a one counter-plan, they can choose to kick it. But, I am willing to listen to the entire range of debates about the legtimacy of counter-plans and whether the negative even has the right to fiat. I saw a round this year in which a team ran a c-plan claiming detterence(esque) advantages and then a Kritik that claimed detterence was bad. I thought that the conditionality debate could have gone for the Affirmative on that one if they had argued it correctly.

Disads. You may want to run some. Political and diplomatic capital has a higher burden of proof for me. The fact that President Barak Obama has instituted or pushed for some of largest social programs, and spending programs in the nation's history probably makes your politcs disad non-unique. But, i will listen to it. Impact turns are fine with me. Often its the best way to punish teams that run too many contridictory positions, hoping something will stick. They should not be punished on fairness...rather they should be punished by strategically granting some of the positions in order to achieve a double-turn for the win. I vote on case turns and solvency turns/take outs. Negatives can win if there is no benefit to doing the affirmative plan. Presumption is on the negative unless the affirmative overcomes is burden of proof. What constitutes that minimum threshold is open to debate. Despite my rhetoric about how I think this activity should progress, I try to be as fair as possible to students within rounds in terms of evaluating the arguments presented and to determine who won the debate. Many a team has thrown a Hail Mary pass and have gotten me to vote for things that are contrary to my personal and debate philosophies.