Chase,+Allie

Allie Chase

It seems to me that people read judge philosophies for two reasons: to see if a judge will vote on framework and to gauge how the judge feels about the range of critical things that are currently happening. So –

I think affirmatives should be about the topic. It is not good if I don’t know what the aff means in relation to the topic after the 1AC. I am more likely to vote on a T argument (the aff should decrease military presence) than a framework argument (the aff needs to defend USFG action bc fairness). I technically could be persuaded by a fairness impact to framework, but tbh you’re better off if your framework includes some sort of methodological argument about political engagement, institutional reform, the most effective processes for social change, etc.

As for the range of critical things- I think these are all important and I really do love a good old fashioned security k. But it’s only fair to warn you that I think the following two things:

 1. Links of omission are not links. If a 2NR says they are extending a link of omission, they need to know that I think they are not extending a link at all. If a 2N wants to go for a “link of commission,” there will be a high threshold for explaining what exactly that means

 2. . Permutations DO make sense in debates about methodology. Researchers and theorists and activists all literally combine methods, all the time. That doesn’t mean the perm makes sense in every context; it just means the assertion “you don’t get perms in a method debate” is nonsense.

In the context of post-modern critiques: I am increasingly frustrated with shitty link arguments. If you are reading a really old, recycled, and generic argument, like Baudrillard or Bataille, I will not feel insecure about saying “I did not understand abc or xyz” when you stink at explaining your argument and voting for the other team. Overreliance on jargon will hurt speaker points.

DA’s, CP’s, case args, theory – I don’t really see us having any problems here.