johnson,+blake

Name: blake johnson School Affiliation: Univ. of Oklahoma

A Preface: I really hate doing these things. Contrary to popular belief, Im not really an ideologue (except about fried okra and elliott smith -- i love both of these and distrust those who do not). Feel free to play debate however you'd like, I'll rarely interfere.

Also, I try my best to resolve every debate as I believe David Heidt would.

For those of you who remain unsatisfied:

Topicality: People usually mention this first because its presumed to be an "above the gameboard" issue. Im sympathetic to the claim that debate cant progress absent agreed upon terms, but I dont think that T functions in a way unlike any other argument. It is just as susceptible to decent aff args (yes, I believe that the aff can conceivably win that T is bad) which diffuse it as a no risk option for the neg. To be perfectly honest, Im not extremely eager to hear generic T debates (especially at this point in the year) when other substantive debates are available. That said, I understand the strategic purpose of T and advise negative teams to be as specific as possible in explaining their interpretation (what it makes the topic look like), the affs deviation from it, and why thats bad (what it means for negative debatability.) Im not inclined to believe that the negative is deserving of any particular "kind" of ground, especially in light of a decent Aff critique, so I suppose arguments oriented around topical limits are your best bet.

The Critique: Poorly debated critiques are probably the most torturous thing I can imagine enduring. On the other hand, well debated critiques are among the most exciting. The difference between these is usually a specific link (though well debated methodological or epistemological critiques -- while perhpas generic -- can definitely interest me), a realistic appraisal of the impact with a calculus for evaluation that favors the negative, and a robust defense of the alternative (which should not be taken to mean that it must always "solve" the aff. it could just as easily be a preferable way of thinking about/approaching the world). Plan specific links obviously go a greater distance toward defeating the permutation than do simple "you used a word we dont appreciate" or "suggested that the state might act" arguments. Defeating the K for the aff can be as simple as complicating the link and problematizing the alt (please do talk about the alt). Ask simple questions and make smart arguments. You needn't be a Heidegger scholar to explain to me why Dillon's reflections on Antigone should not be cause for my ignoring impending nuclear war.

Performance: Im not sure what this means. I find that teams that are labeled "performative" are still making arguments. I evaluate those, but by all means perform well.

CP/DA: Im rarely excited about another Lopez throw down. Counterplans and DAs are really fun debate when specific to the affirmative and well developed. Ridiculous PICs with marginal (typically nonsensical) net-benefits annoy me and degrade debate. This is not to say that I wont vote for them but that I wish AFFs would be more human and less debater in responding to them. Problematize the link story -- Im sympathetic to strong defensive arguments and politics DAs are almost always dumb. Talk about the competitiveness of the CP -- if all 50 state courts overruling a supreme court decision wont crush its legitimacy SURELY the supreme court agreeing with them wont (you know who you are). These things demonstrate to me why PICS are bad better than do PICS bad args.

A few asides: I dont take myself very seriously and neither should you. Humor is always more engaging than hostility. I love to reward funny debate, even if I am, but preferably if anyone I know is, the butt of the joke.

Also, I have perhaps a high threshold for arguments that are obviously stupid. I am confident that you can discern these as well as I can but will disclose that I count among them many theory args like "must define all words" or "aff choice."

Cross-ex should be the most exciting part of a debate, please dont bore me by asking the aff to explain their plan in their own words.

You do not, or should not, have an "underview."

And finally, my name is blake. I am inclined to ignore or revolt against all requests made to or demands made of "Judge."