Hockensmith,+Jessica

BACKGROUND:
Eagle High School (06-10) Michigan State University (10 - ) 3 Week Lab Leader at the Spartan Debate Institute Working for New Trier

Rounds judged on this topic: 15 (edited July 2011)

BIG PICTURE:
The more thought I put into this activity the more I've come to believe that strict paradigms contradict the purpose of a debate. I've found that exclusive rejection of arguments based on personal preference is a level of judge intervention that I am simply uncomfortable with. There's nothing I enjoy less than a debate that's terrible because the debaters are forced out of their comfort zone.

That being said, I have a few comments on stylistic preferences: a) The line by line has become a lost art. b) Impact calculus is critical if you'd like to win the debate. c) Evidence isn't a substitute for analysis - both elements are crucial.

SPECIFICS:

 * Case** – The aff should probably defend the hypothetical implementation of a policy option by the USFG. The 1AC should be a carefully constructed assortment of evidence that saves the aff time while answering neg positions. Too often 1AC's are filled with cards that have no strategic utility - get rid of those. The neg should actually debate the case and not just grant the aff 100% of their arguments or try-or-die 2AR framing becomes particularly threatening.


 * Topicality** – I've become fond of well impacted Topicality debates. While in the past I have leaned more towards reasonability, I'm now swaying towards defaulting to competing interpretations. I agree that T probably comes down to the meta-question of “resolutional intent” rather than micro-tech questions, but I'm not going to dissuade negatives from going for poorly handled T arguments. Keep in mind, however, that shallow T debates are some of the most painful things to sit through.


 * Counterplans** – They're tight. Read them.

Conditionality = good to a certain point, but I'm not sure what number surpasses acceptability. (judge conditionality is entirely debatable)

Dispo = debatable PICs = debatable Word PICs = debatable, please have the textual v functional comp debate Conditions = debatable Consult = probably bad States CP fiat = debatable Advantage CP = good CP that result in the plan = debatable


 * DA** – Love them. I think they’re a good educational model and encourage lots of research, particularly politics. I think evidence quality really makes or breaks a disad debate. Issue specific uniqueness is crucial. I think the DA turns the case debate is a FANTASTIC place for the neg to gain a lot of ground, and I tend to give a lot of weight to these arguments. The disad is where I read the most evidence. Also, I HATE intrinsicness/bottom of the docket/vote no. They’re not real world, and they definitely eliminate all neg ground.


 * K** – High school K debates are usually terrible. Don't turn into an overintellectual K hack and just spit out a bunch of jargon in place of making arguments. I think the K has a very strategic place in debate and I'm becoming less persuaded by the "K's shouldn't exist" arguments than I previously may have been. I don’t think you can win a K debate without winning an explicitly defined mechanism for weighing impacts. This is because the alternative usually can’t solve in a framework where the aff is able to grandstand about utilitarian body count impacts.

All of that being said, I suppose my threshold for the K is relatively high. I think that the neg needs to have explicit links to the affirmative and impact stories that impede the aff's ability to solve their own case.

On the perm debate, I think the perm: double bind is troubling but certainly not unwinnable for the negative. It needs to be addressed separately than all of the other perms though, because it is a different argument. The link debate alone doesn’t address the claims the aff will make later in the debate. The aff also needs to be more explicit in their analysis of this perm – scripted analysis isn’t enough, contextualize the interaction with that particular alternative.

For the affs out there, address the alt solvency debate. I feel like the neg is granted alt solvency in the same way the aff is granted case solvency. There are definitely weaknesses in both, exploit them.


 * Theory** – usually a reason to reject the arg, not the team; but this obviously depends on the situation. I think in round abuse has to be severe in order to warrant dropping the team.


 * If you have any other explicit questions, or need me to explain anything, just ask before the round. Debate should be both competitive and fun, don't eliminate one of those aspects and you should be fine.**