Chamberlain,+Will

Will Chamberlain - Judging Philosophy

OVERVIEW:

I believe that to some extent judge philosophies are giant lies - they are a statement of how we want to think of ourselves as judges, and not how we actually judge. As such, I now make a habit of posting my rfds to a google site: sites.google.com/site/oregonrfds - I would recommend reading through these before you take my word as to my preferences and defaults.

I believe that debate should be evaluated objectively, in the interests of fairness. However, you should recognize that you can make arguments that will lead me to rethink this approach to criticism. Winning "fairness bad" or "judge intervention good" may seem strategic in the context of a given round, but as these arguments indict my framework for criticism and my reasons for remaining objective and flow-centric, they may not be arguments worth winning. Caveat emptor.

I'm willing to gut-check arguments. If you do something blatantly unfair in your MGC, and the MOC calls you on it, your PMR better make some extremely persuasive arguments. That said, the most common MOC theory arguments - mgc's must provide a written copy of perm texts and MGCs must take a question, I tend to find unpersuasive (the former especially.) But shifting your framework/plan text in the MGC to escape offense is something that makes me want to punish you. In the interests of fairness, of course. Additionally, if you go for theory in the PMR with some asinine arguments to try and take advantage of the lack of a second rebuttal, I'm not going to be afraid to evaluate your arguments.

SPEAKER POINTS

My range is 25-30. 26 is mediocre, 27.5 is average, 28 is good, 28.5 is very good, 29 is excellent, 30 is flawless. Speaker points are also one way in which I reward what i subjectively consider to be "good debate" - that being strong defenses of a topical affirmative, along with non-generic negative strategies that engage the case in a smart way. I.E. if you are actually doing parli debate - coming up with good, responsive arguments in prep time - you will be rewarded, whereas if you are reading politics and courts you will probably max out at 29.

TOPICALITY

I am biased to think that the aff should have a topical plan text, in the interests of fairness. I probably vote on topicality more often than other critics. I'm open to alternate frameworks and different ways of affirming the resolution, with the exceptions noted in paragraph 2.

I cannot stand the common practice of reading a squirrely affirmative and then refraining from reading no-link arguments on d/as in order to prove there was no "articulated abuse." This almost always leads to a debate that makes everyone in the room dumber. Guess what - if the topic was about russia, and you read a bolivia aff - you abused the neg out of their Russia D/As. If a D/A doesn't link, then no-link it and win that you are topical. If you aren't topical I won't particularly care about whether or not there was "potential" or "articulated" abuse, which to me often seems like a distinction without a difference. (Note: this does not apply nearly as much to d/a links predicated on a lack of specification.)

A-SPEC, E-SPEC, etc...

These arguments are stupid and 2ACs should dispense with them with a minimum of fuss - if the aff does not ask a POI, I consider "POIs check" to be a golden answer. Collapsing to this argument in the block will result in low speaker points absent something truly egregious.

DISADVANTAGES

I think that the uniqueness controls the direction of the link - occasionally. Most of the time it doesn't. The reason is that predicting future events is inherently fuzzy, and it's basically impossible for P to equal 1 on the probability of some bill passing Congress. That means that regardless of whether or not said bill is likely to pass, what really matters to me are the relative strength of the link arguments vs. the link turn arguments.

That being said, if the uniqueness goes completely uncontested, I think it probably controls the direction of the link. And further, if the debaters tell me the uniqueness controls the direction of the link, then it definitely does.

I also think that there is such a thing as terminal defense on a disadvantage. It doesn't come up that often, so you would be wise to make offensive responses and go for them in the rebuttal.

COUNTERPLANS

Theory is a reason to reject the argument and not the team. Period, end stop. "But they concede that running an agent counterplan is a voter!" I don't care. The only shell that might convince me to vote against the neg is a nuanced condo bad shell, and even then I would be tempted to simply hold the neg to their cp.

Text comp is an interesting debate to me, as is PICS bad, consult bad, agent bad, conditioned bad…you get the picture. I'm happy to listen to theory, just realize 5 mins of theory in the pmr is very unlikely to win you the ballot.

Oh, and bee tee dub, if you read a PICs bad shell, going for "They don't have a counter-interpretation" in the PMR is asinine.

THE K

Contrary to popular belief, I actually find the K debate pretty interesting. Keep in mind though, I probably haven't read your literature, and I probably don't understand your vernacular. If you want me to vote on an argument you need to explain it clearly and simply, but if you do so my ballot is easily accessible (even on cap bad LOLWTFBBQ.) That said, I'm unwilling to vote on an argument I don't understand, and I'm intellectually secure enough to think that if I don't understand your argument, said failure to communicate was your fault and not mine.

I find framework to be particularly uncompelling as a procedural argument against a critique run by the negative, but solid as a way to get your aff to matter in the debate. I'm probably persuadable on this issue though.

My instinct is that most MGs are too focused on reading procedurals against the K, and not focused enough on comparing the world of the plan/perms to the world of the alternative. More offense, less whining, please.

K affs are kosher. The best k affs are ones that claim specific impacts off of a topical affirmative. Framework can be compelling to me against a K aff that does not defend a topical plan action.

THE LOR

I have a special section for this speech because I think nearly everyone in the community gives it terribly. If you give a repeatal you will get low speaker points. On the other hand, if you waive your speech time when it is strategic to do so, you will get as least as high speaker points as does your MO. I'm especially underwhelmed by LOs who read self-executing strategies in the LOC and then repeat their partners in the LOR. If you want speaks as an LO, you will have to give LORs that improve your team's winning chances, as opposed to simply repeating what your partner said - and if you can't give such an LOR, it's better that you not speak at all.

Questions? Just ask.

willmagic101 AT gmail DOT com http://sites.google.com/site/oregonrfds/chamberlain