Strait,+Paul

Judging Philosophy – March 2010 Years Judging -- College 7, High school 10 ** ** __Bumper stickers__ :** **Tech beats truth. Debate is a game. Relative risk. Offense/defense. Reject the argument not the team.
 * Paul Strait, University of Southern California ** **

__Kritik/Policy:__ ** In general, I am good for Ks that disprove the desirability of the affirmative's advocacy. I am also good for K affs that criticize the USFG's nuclear weapon policy and at least implicitly contain the position that a reduction in size, roles, or missions would be preferable to current nuclear policy. I think many teams might not know this about me, and might be mislead by the rest of this judging philosophy into believing that I am on balance hostile to K. However, I also must point out that I am good for T, and I am good for conservative policy teams that go for framework. For the same reason, I'm good for K teams that go for framework. I think this distinguishes me from many judges that fall into one or the other camps. It is your debate, I have an extremely accurate flow unless you are abnormally unclear, and my academic background (and the kinds of debate research assignments I take) makes me familiar with virtually all of the relevant topic literature, both policy and K. My favorite debates to judge are extremely complicated policy debates -- and, sadly, almost every debate I judge is a clash of civilizations -- but more than anything else this is an aesthetic preference.


 * __Biases__: ** Most judging philosophies are useless because people just say "do whatever you want, I'm cool with anything." Now, to be honest, my specific argument preferences are mostly irrelevant -- 90% of the time my biases won't matter. Nevertheless, I am a really bad judge for certain things, and you should know what they are. I'm really not as ideological as this might suggest, and I am disturbed by how politicized judging has become in recent years. But like every judge, whether they admit it or not, when things are close my biases may very well come into play. If you are reading this before the debate, and you have some choice in the matter, avoid the following:


 * 1. 'Non-traditional argumentation.'** I am unlikely to be compelled by non-logical 'argumentation.' If you are planning on losing on the flow, you should not prefer me. This does not mean that you have to answer the other team's arguments in order -- though you probably ought to because it will help you win -- but if you spend a large part of your speech time on a performance or something else besides logical argumentation, you can probably find better judges to prefer than me.


 * 2. Planless or blatantly non-topical affirmatives.** I am a bad judge for this. Debates that start with a stable, clear, and predictable advocacy are overwhelmingly better than the alternative. //Obviously//. And the resolution doesn't just ensure predictability -- it divides ground so that no side has a large inherent 'truth' advantage. I will certainly try to be objective, and I will listen very carefully to your arguments and rigorously examine the flow, but as the magic-8 ball says, "outlook not so good," "very doubtful," and "my sources say no." Note: if you have a creative interpretation that is directly grounded in the words of the resolution, I doubt I'm any worse than the average judge for your aff. But, I am bad for teams that rely on attacking the impact of T.


 * 3. Word PICs.** Textual competition is stupid; the suggestion that I should find it persuasive is borderline offensive. If your CP is not functionally competitive, I will not pretend that I am comparing two competitive policy systems simply because your CP "competes" textually. Plan and counterplan texts are convenient shorthand for actual policies; this is "policy debate," not "text debate." If you have to read a word PIC, at least have an argument about why the actual policies would be different.


 * 4. Alternatives that include the plan.** Obviously not competitive.


 * 5. Kritiks that have nothing to do with the plan.** No, you have to disprove the desirability of the plan. This isn't impossible with a K -- it is certainly the case that our representations are the vehicle through which we see and know the world, and so they determine how we evaluate truth claims, including the claim that the plan should be endorsed... but if you want my ballot, focus on explaining why your link arguments prove that the __plan__ is undesirable. Many kritiks meet this standard, but many don't. If you win that your opponents' representations or methods are bad, that isn't enough. If their representations are dangerous, because they lead to badness, show me how me how the thing their reps lead to (the plan) is bad. If their worldview is incorrect, prove to me that it means that I shouldn't endorse the plan. Don't say "that's the wrong question" or "this is a prior question" -- in front of me, it isn't either.


 * 6. Domestic agent counterplans.** Especially on this topic -- do you really expect me to take seriously your contention that the supreme court should make nuclear policy?


 * 7. International agent counterplans**. Your counterplan to have some nation in Europe solve the U.S.'s problems in Europe is not a logical response to the affirmative, and the suggestion otherwise is a tad bit disrespectful to your opponents. Imagine a squad meeting in which your debate coach said to you "I'd like you to do the politics updates for this weekend," and you said "I've got a better idea: I'd like the debaters on all the other squads to work on other stuff besides updating the politics da -- it solves equally and has the net benefit of saving time for everyone." Do you think your coach, and your teammates, would appreciate you taking up their time during a squad meeting with this nonsense? If your coach and teammates are there to work hard and be serious, and you waste their time with such a frivolous suggestion, how are you not being disrespectful to them? Is what you said actually a reason why you should not cut the politics updates? So then why do you insist--sometimes vigorously and ideologically--that these kind of counterplans are good for debate? At least if you are going to do this, don't smugly maintain that you are a 'hard-working' team. Please. "Oh we hate the consultation counterplan, because it is lazy-- instead we like to say that problems should just be solved by someone else or go away on their own." Ok, fair enough, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously as a member of this community.


 * 8. Consultation/condition/process counterplans.** Two problems with these: [A] They probably aren't functionally competitive. To prove otherwise, the negative has to win that the plan includes things that are not in the plan, nor ever even discussed by the affirmative (like, e.g., 'immediacy' or the alleged 'unconditional nature' of the plan). If you are defining "resolved" and "should" and you expect me to be thrilled, you are probably high. [B] They are lazy. The aff didn't do a ton of research on their case so that they could debate about which week would be best to do the plan, or whether we should give some nation or organization a veto that they will not even use. In front of me, you are much better off reading a specific, responsive strategy that clashes with the basic thesis of the aff. That said, you'll do okay if you have VERY SPECIFIC evidence that compares the desirability of the counterplan to that of the plan -- not some jive turkey shit about "nuclear policy" or even "reducing the role of nuclear weapons," but the actual specific policy outlined in the plan text.


 * 9. Voting issues**. I really like theory, and I think it is useful for all sorts of reasons, but you are unlikely to persuade me to vote on it. Even conditionality -- the remedy is that the aff gets to decide if the neg is forced to go for the counterplan or the status quo. Maybe conditionality "skews the strategy of the 2AC," but if you are so far behind that you cannot win even when you get to decide after listening to the 2NR... well then, it wasn't conditionality that did you in. Your problems go well beyond conditionality. (Also, conditionality isn't bad).


 * 10. Cheating.** Don't lie about how much of a card you have read. When you write down permutation texts, write down exactly what you said, not what you wished you said or planned on saying but didn't say. Don’t dishonestly extend evidence you didn’t read, and certainly don't try to hand me evidence you didn't read. Mark your cards as you read them, not after your speech. Do not be shady before the round -- if it is not really a brand new plan, don't say it is a new plan without giving a qualifier.


 * 11. Immaturity.** Be helpful to your opponents during their prep time. Do not offer me evidence I did not ask for, unless my request is genuinely unclear. Do not insult your opponents. Do not be pissy to your opponents in cx. Answer every cx question even if you don't think it is relevant or you don't think they made that arg in their speech. When you are asking questions, let your opponents finish answering. Aside from making the experience unpleasant, debaters who are disrespectful to their opponents tend to underestimate the strength of their opponents’ arguments. Great debaters win without making anyone feel bad.

---
 * __Evidence__ **


 * 1. Some claims require more data than others.**


 * 2. Evidence quality trumps spin.** Evidence is not merely ‘support’ for an argument, it is part of the argument. I do not view tag lines as arguments that find support in evidence as much as tools to organize the arguments which exist within the evidence.


 * 3. Avoid redundancy.** Redundant cards that do not offer distinct warrants are not worth reading unless you have a reason why the mere repetition of an argument in multiple publications somehow bears on the question of whether that argument is likely to be true. It is totally irrelevent that you are "outcarding them 10 to 1" if your ten cards make the exact same argument and their 1 card answers it.


 * 4. I wish qualifications were debated more.** Authors should not just be qualified, but qualified to make the specific claims that they are making in the evidence you read. Also I wish publication sources were debated more, especially now that it has become commonplace to read evidence from blogs and other random webpages. Passing peer review or editorial review means something.


 * 5. In the final rebuttal you need to resolve differences in evidence quality**. Don't just extend your slew of cards-- explain why the reasons in your cards beat the reasons in their cards. If all you are doing is extending cards and repeating your arguments, then why not just call it a day after the 1ar is over?

---
 * __Delivery__ **


 * By and large, I wish debaters were much more clear, and I tend to think most debaters should slow down a little bit**. This is not about my flow, which is quite good-- rather, it is because I have noticed that I am much more in sync with those debaters who speak clearly enough for me to understand the internal claims and warrants within their evidence as it is being read. This is not a deal-breaker, and to be honest I read a good deal of evidence after debates, but in close debates I suspect this is often the determining factor -- when the complete arguments of one team are very clear to me in real time, it colors the way I process the arguments of the other team. This makes it much more likely that my final RFD will line up well with the way you saw the debate.


 * This is especially true for complicated counterplan texts** -- it is more than just annoying to not understand what a counterplan does until the negative block or later. Remember that debaters get to pass things back and forth during the debate, while I don't get to look at anything until the end.


 * T should not be first in the 1NC/2AC**. It is so much easier to flow if I am already used to your voice.

---
 * __Topicality__ **


 * When comparing interpretations, I am most interested in determining what the resolution actually means**. I am skeptical of claims that I should always prefer the most limiting interpretation -- an interpretation that is not predictable to both sides is useless. That said, ceteris paribus, a more limited interpretation produces better debates. My point is just that if the aff can prove that the actual meaning of the resolution includes their plan, that is 'offense' for their interpretation that will very likely outweigh the 'limits' offense the neg will probably be winning. And likewise, if the neg can prove that the actual meaning of the resolution does not include the aff's plan, that will almost certainly outweigh the 'learning about more things' and 'creativity' offense the aff will probably be winning.


 * Reasonability vs. competing interpretations.** [1] Topicality is always a question of competing interpretations. I'm just not a 'reasonability' kind of guy --- but you can reframe 'reasonability' arguments as a way to compare interpretations (i.e., their interpretation overlimits if it excludes things that are 'reasonable,' and it probably isn't very predictable for the affirmative). [2] When talking about reasonability, you have to win a link. This means you need to provide criteria for judging whether or not an affirmative is reasonable. [3] If, at the end of the debate, the affirmative's advocacy does not meet the best interpretation of the resolution, they lose. If the affirmative fails to offer a counter-interpretation, it does not matter how stupid the negative’s interpretation is.

---
 * __Disadvantages__ **


 * Smart analytical defense can make the risk of a DA __extremely__ low**. Also true against advantages. Impact cards tend to be ‘worst case scenarios’ rather than ‘most probable outcomes.’ There are often several alt causes or uniqueness problems for every internal link making up a disad. Many elements of a DA are often empirically denied. If you concede "economic downturn = extinction," for example, you are just asking to lose. In real life, outside of debate, do you think the plan will cause nuclear war, really? Like, if the plan happens, are you going to take out a huge loan, buy a bunch of wasteful fun shit, and then head for an underground bunker? I'm guessing no--- and you can convince me to be equally unpersuaded. Just tell me all the actual reasons why it is stupid.


 * When comparing the link to the link turn, keep in mind that both might be true.** You will have to win defense to the link in addition to your link turn (or vice-versa). Additionally, unless you have a card that compares the link to the link turn (very uncommon), the question is going to be resolved by analytical arguments about which is most likely to be true in the context of the internal link. Do not simply extend your ev in the final rebuttal. If the DA is about health care reform, then compare the link to the link turn in the context of health care reform -- who are the actual swing voters? What kinds of things in particular will cause these people to change how they are going to vote? Why might spending be more or less salient than national security? Why might the kind of political capital spent by doing the plan be more or less relevant to the kind of political capital needed? Why might public popularity be more or less important? I cannot emphasize enough that this is a question that is resolved by debating, and not simply by reading/extending evidence.


 * Arguments interact.** More often than not, debaters win the debate when they do a better job explaining why the impacts they are winning interact with, access, or turn the impacts that their opponents are winning. That is good advice in general, and particularly good advice when I am judging, because this is often the stasis issue that ends up determining the round winner.


 * You are unlikely to persuade me to evaluate uniqueness before evaluating the direction of the link.** Very often, uniqueness is closer to 50% than it is to either 0% or 100%, usually because something is far off in the future, or because we really just don't know or can't be sure at this point. The more certain you are that something is unique, the stronger your link has to be to overcome that uniqueness; likewise, the less certain you are that something is unique, the stronger your link has to be to distinguish the plan from other possible factors that could trigger the disadvantage. Either way, the link is more important, and the uniqueness question is only relevant insofar as it helps determine the importance of the link or link turn that has been won.


 * Magnitude is a lot more important than time frame**. Unless the time frame difference is several years, long enough that it is conceivable that some intervening event will prevent or solve the impact, I am going to prioritize magnitude. For the most part, time frame is relevant only when two impacts are equal in probability and magnitude, or when both impacts trigger the other.

---
 * __Kritiks and critical affirmatives__ **


 * I have no overwhelming bias toward either the ‘policy’ or ‘kritik’ genres**. I do prefer, however, when debaters can make their arguments work on the negative without having to win a framework argument. So against a non-USFG aff, don't read a DA to USFG action. And against a policy aff, don't read a K that doesn't speak to the desirability of the plan. I don't get why this is controversial. Go for T if you can't do that.


 * It isn't really about the plan vs. the alternative.** Most alternatives aren't really 'advocacies,' they are more akin to criterion statements. At the end of the debate, I have to decide whether endorsing the plan is better than not endorsing the plan. Your alternative is really just a set-up to win your link to an argument that proves that I should not endorse the plan as a desirable policy option.


 * I default to the role of an individual taking a position about whether the United States Federal Government should enact the mandates of the plan**. I do not pretend that I am the USFG (does anyone actually do this?), but I am very unlikely to be persuaded that my ballot 'does' very much politically, and all things being equal I'd like to support policy proposals that I believe will have good consequences, even though I know my support is without material consequence. I could easily be persuaded that my status as an individual should have a great deal of bearing on how I decide what position to take. It is not unheard of for people take what they believe to be principled positions irrespective of their likely negative consequences. Nevertheless, you could easily persuade me that as a rational individual, I should adopt the most 'true' position, removing myself from the picture. You could appeal to my self-interest, the greater good, or something in between -- you just must win a. that the decision-making framework you would have me use is more desirable than any alternative presented in the debate, and b. that within this decision-making framework I must take a position in favor of (or against) the plan.


 * Framework is about what kind of link arguments you get, and what kind of things you get to advocate.** It has nothing to do with "getting to weigh your impacts." I don't understand why people don't understand this.


 * The permutation only needs to solve the links as well as the alternative does.** This should be obvious, but I point it out only because I have noticed that the alternative often does not solve all of the links, especially new link arguments read in the block, and especially if the kritik combines authors and intellectual traditions that are not similarly connected in the literature. The other reason I point this out is to draw attention to the fact that the permutation exists in order to solve the links. Therefore, when extending the permutation, especially in the 1AR and 2AR, you should explain individually how the permutation solves each of the links. When teams do this, and also cover everything the block said against the permutation, I very often find myself voting aff on the permutation.

---
 * __Counterplans__ **


 * As an architectonic, 'the CP solves the entire case and there is a risk of a net benefit' is extremely persuasive.**


 * Don't neglect case defense.** If the plan is twice as likely to solve than the counterplan, but there is only a 1% risk that the plan will solve, then the difference between the plan and the counterplan is only half of a percent. If the aff wins that their plan sends a much stronger signal than the counterplan, but the negative wins that probably no one will respond to a signal, then the difference between the plan and the counterplan is trivially small despite a "huge solvency deficit". It is sometimes quicker and more effective in the 2NR to go to the case page where you are overwhelmingly ahead than to depend completely on beating the affirmative's solvency deficit claims outright. 2NR choices are everything, and this is something worth considering unless you are sure that you solve all of the case.


 * I lean slightly aff on permutations in general.** I think this is mostly because I often decide that even though the plan links to the disadvantage, and the counterplan doesn't link to the disadvantage, and the aff is not winning a whole lot of link defense, the permutation solves some or most of the link. Very often, the neg just points out that the permutation doesn't solve //all// of the link (very often just by reasserting that the plan still links), and ignores the fact that this changes the link vs. link turn comparison, or the disadvantage vs. advantage comparison.


 * I'm not entirely convinced that intrinsic permutations should be rejected outright.** This is particularly the case for counterplans that include the entirety of the plan. If the thesis of your argument is that we should consult NATO about the plan, why isn't it a reasonable response to say that we should consult NATO about something else? Doesn't that test whether the plan is key? Isn't being a relevant opportunity cost of the plan the basic duty of a counterplan?


 * When judging theory, I tend to prefer interpretations that are based on the logic of decision making.** I don't care as much about "education" or "fairness" in the abstract because you are unlikely to prove conclusively that your interpretation is key to those things.


 * If the counterplan is conditional, my default is that the status quo is always an option, even if the 2NR goes for the counterplan** (unless the negative said earlier in the debate that they will only go for a single consistent 2NR strategy). However, this does not mean you shouldn't provide a sentence or two of explanation of why you win without the counterplan; likewise, unless it is totally obvious, the 2AR should provide a sentence or two of explanation of why they win against the status quo.

---
 * __Dropped arguments__ **


 * Tech beats truth, but strategy can beat tech**. Dropped arguments are true arguments. But, if a ‘dropped’ argument is logically but not directly answered by other arguments on the flow, I will not regard the argument as entirely dropped, i.e., if the thesis of a DA answers some argument which is technically dropped by the 2nr, I will not treat that argument as if it has not been answered. Also, an argument must make logical sense to me as a complete argument before it can be ‘dropped.’


 * Give the most charitable interpretation of your opponents’ argument.** This is especially important if you think your opponent has dropped something – figure out everything that they said that could potentially be an answer, and explain why it isn’t or why it is wrong. If you do this, I am likely to agree with you at the end of the debate, since even the most charitable interpretation of their argument is insufficient. If you don’t do this, you leave the door open (if you are negative) for cross-applications in the 2AR, or (if you are affirmative) cross-applications in my mind after the debate that seem logically implied, which I try to at least consider since the negative doesn’t get a 3NR.

---
 * __Speaker points__ ****:**


 * 1. Talking pretty.** How do you sound? If you screw up an argument, it might cost you the debate, but it won’t cost you speaker points if you sounded good while doing it. Ways to sound good: be clear; use examples to support your arguments (these examples can be historical, literary, or based on matters of common experience that are part of daily life); don’t repeat yourself; embed clash; employ ‘even if’ statements; word economy.


 * 2. Effective CX.** Did you set up future arguments? Did you cover lots of ground, instead of dwelling on a single issue? Did you ask and answer your own questions? I flow the CX, and sometimes right before I assign points I go back and look to see how productive you were in CX. The very best CXers, in my mind, are those who can figure out in advance the primary issues that I will have to resolve after the debate is over, and then ask questions that enable them to establish dominance on those issues.


 * 3. Ethos.** I think debate is best when it is hard, and I want to see you working as hard as you can throughout the debate. Be intense. Be serious. Did you sound like you knew what you were talking about? Did you come across like an expert in cx? Did you screw around during your opponents' prep time? Does your ev look like a total hurricane of disorganization?


 * 4. Strategy.** If your strategy is very specific, if it requires a ton of work to research, if it requires you to be ahead on several questions rather than a single generic or meta-level question, you will get higher points. If your strategy is generic enough to be applicable in almost every debate, if it enables you to avoid clashing with most of your opponents arguments, if it is a product of a decision to not research the entire topic, you will get lower points.


 * 5. Decorum.** I like aggressive and assertive debating. I dislike hostility, rudeness, browbeating, and evasiveness. If you made me smile, you will get higher points. Vulgarity doesn’t bother me, and can be used effectively as a point of emphasis from time to time, but if you are being vulgar for no reason or if it is so excessive that it fails to emphasize anything, you will get lower points. If you intentionally made your opponents uncomfortable, whether as part of your strategy, or simply because you felt like being a jerk, you will get lower points. If your opponents tell you that you are making them uncomfortable, and you continue to be rude, you will get //much// lower points, and I might vote against you. Your opponents may or may not be your friends, but as a rule of thumb you should not treat them no worse than you would treat your friends.