Wilkins,+Mark

About me: I debated in High School at Washburn Rural High School where I currently coach. I am currently in my 5th year of debate at KU. My knowledge of this topic is somewhat limited, although i did lead a lab at KU, and have been known to judge the occasional practice round or 2.

The short of it: Do what ever makes you feel comfortable as a debater. I think the value in debate is learning to debate all sides of an issue, and i think i try hard to move away from my biases as a judge (although this seems near impossible). My fear as a judge is that someone will read this philosophy and will try to move away from their comfort zone. In the end, i think debaters careers are what they want them to be, and if that means debating a certain style then i will try to do my best to adjudicate based on what is presented in the round. In general, negative teams win when they minimize the size of the case (through case defense, a CP that solves the case, or a K that questions the assumptions of the aff) and has an external reason why the aff is bad.

Obviously my biases as a judge are something that people will probably have to deal with if/when I judge them. Like i said, these should be guidelines and not rules to live by. So here are some things that people should probably know about how i view debate: --I dont think im in the offense/defense camp. I'm willing to assign 0% risk to the argument if the negative can't establish a link to an argument. Obviously, offense always helps. --I am not likely to vote on a cheap shot, unless its a perm to do the CP or do the alt. --cross-x is either the best or the worst part of the debate. Teams do well when they use cross-x to set up arguments or question the evidence quality of the other team. This will be better for everyone if there is actually a point for your cross-x questions, and not just using cross-x as the 3 minutes of free prep that your partner gets.

Case: Extremely underutilized. Minimizing the case is a sweet way to win a high risk of the disad. Likewise, I think the aff teams should be leveraging alot more of the case against disads/Ks than what happens in most rounds. A "try or die for the aff" argument is quite persuasive. I think even if you are going for a CP, you should still extend case defense as a way to avoid a "try or die" framing by the aff.

Kritiks: These aren't my cup of tea as a debater, although i am certainly willing to listen to them. A specific Kritik is always better than the generic security K. Affirmative teams willing to exclude a set of arguments because they aren't within the framework are probably fighting an uphill battle for me. Likewise, negative teams that are willing to convince me that I should ignore the consequence of the plan are also probably fighting an uphill battle. In general, i find myself voting negative when the affirmative team fails to contest meta arguments on the K about the method/epistimology and/or impact framing arguments in how i should weigh the K's impacts. Neg teams lose to policy teams when they fail to mitigate the aff in some way, be it through a framing argument or a value to life claim. In general, i think i tend to view these arguments sort of like a CP and Disad, with all of the baggage that this view carries. Jokes like "LD is next semester" will probably be met with a few giggles, but is not a substantive argument.

Topicality: It is a voting issue and not a reverse voting issue. I have not found myself persuaded by a reasonability argument, and I think that competing interpretations is sort of the only non-arbitrary way to view a debate. If the negative team has an interp of a word and the affirmative doesnt have a counter-interp, the neg's definition to me seems to be the only way to view debates. In general, I think the negative team ends up winning these debates when they focus on a limits argument, and explain how their interpretation allows for a reasonable number of affirmatives, while the aff's interpretation explodes limits. Hen it comes to specification arguments, call me Bartleby because I’d prefer not to.

DAs They are tight. My favorite strategy of a debater is the disad and a case strategy. Impact framing arguments are pretty important to win these arguments, and i think that alot of teams do a poor job of explaining how arguments interact with each other, and explaining meta-arguments that will frame how i assess the debate in terms of Uniqueness, link, etc. DA turns the case is a slayer, and I will be more than happy to vote on it. On a side note, i tend to do alot of politics research, and do infact find it intrinsic to the plan. Intrinsicness arguments are an uphill battle, unless dropped by the negative (which happens more than it should). I also think that alot of the politics cards that people read are atrocious, and think that 7 bad cards does not equal one good, well warranted card. This also isn't unique to the politics disad, alot of cards people are reading everywhere are atrocious, and smart teams will capitalize on it by pointing out how their evidence makes arguments that go the other way. I am not part of the "cult of uniqueness" by any means, but I think that uniqueness is an important component of the link debate.

CPs They are integral part of the negative strategy. I think that there is a time and a place for textual or functional competition, and I try to let the debaters convince me one way or the other. In general, here are my views on legitimacy of CPs. CP theory is a reason to reject the argument, not the team, unless the aff has a reason why it skewed their ability to debate other positions (I can only see this being true in a conditionality debate). The net benefits shoud probably be disads to the aff, and not just advantages to the CP (I can be persuaded that the condition net benefit is a disad to the aff).

Could not see myself being convinced of (unless dropped): Topical CPs are bad Severance/Intrinsicness perms are good (unless the aff has a reason why they are justified by the type of the CP) Severance/Intrinsicness perms are a reason to reject the team PICs are bad Dispositionality Bad

Fighting an uphill battle: Conditionality Bad Floating PICs Good

In the Middle: Conditions CP Functional/textual competition multiple conditional CPs

CP theory i'm sympathetic to: CPs that do not use the USFG as their actor Consultation CPs are illegitimate

I'm not sure where the brightline for any of this stuff is. As an important note: I dont think many (if any) Agent CPs are competitive. The executive doing the plan is just a way that the aff could be done, not a radically different departure from what the aff is.

If there are any questions, just ask me before the debate.