Cram+Helwich,+David

David Cram Helwich

David Cram Helwich University of Minnesota 12 years judging, 20+ rounds this year

These musings represent my personal preferences and opinions, and are thus open to debate.

Argument Preferences: I like good policy debate. I also like good critical debate. In other words, I like good debate. If your stylist preferences include agent CPs and politics, I am willing to listen to them, just as I am willing to listen to performative affs. In front of me, you are almost always better off doing what you do well rather than trying to cater to my biases.

This Topic/Evidence: I have done a lot of work on the Afghanistan and Iran portions of the topic, and a fair amount of block editing on Syria, and feel pretty comfortable sorting through complex debates in these areas. I am a lot less familiar with the literature on Lebanon and the PA, so you may want to be more careful explaining acronyms and internal political dynamics. I am a bad judge for you if your evidence is marginal—data and warrants beyond “our author says so, trust us” are appreciated. Six cards that give one reason to believe a claim (a purportedly qualified person says so) amount to one only reason you are right, even if 5 of those cards are read in a rebuttal.

Delivery: Please be clear. If I am not on a panel, I will give verbal prompts if comprehensibility becomes an issue, but am prone to giving up if you ignore me.

Topicality: I vote on topicality. I believe that the affirmative, in most cases, should specify how they implement their plan. I prefer that a procedural argument be well developed (a big chunk of the block and the 2NR) if you plan on going for it. I tend to think that many debaters spend far too much time debating the “link” on topicality (violation) and not enough time debating the “impact” (comparing the effects of competing interpretations on what and how we debate). “CE = QPQ” makes a lot more sense to me than “CE = be nice,” but I have voted for affs that demand nothing of the other government.

Kritiks: I read a fair amount of critical theory. Many people believe that this likely leaves me biased towards more critical forms of argument. However, please do not assume that my scholarly orientation means that I hack for the K. I enjoy a good kritik debate, but cringe at the thought of judging bad ones. I am not particularly impressed by the ability to cram as many multi-syllable words into a speech as possible-explaining what your argument means is far more important than showing that you have mastered a cultural studies vocab list. You should also not assume that I am necessarily familiar with the intricacies of your favorite arm-chair intellectual-the A and B sections of even a moderate library are enormous. Negatives usually win when they identify a _specific_ link and articulate a _specific_ impact and explain how that impact interacts with the impact of the case. I also think that affs are better off engaging with a criticism than simply spewing down a generic “pomo ain’t good” frontline. Affirmatives seem to be much more successful in front of me if they begin with a sound defense of the theoretical underpinnings of their advocacy. My best guess is that critical affs bat around .500 with me as a judge. I find many non-traditional means of affirming (or negating) to be interesting. However, I am concerned about fairness issues. Do what you want, justify it, and you will be okay.

Disadvantages/Risk: I like them, a lot, especially if they are “true” at the link level—contrived disads are better than solvency presses, I suppose.I tend to interpret ‘risk of a link’ to mean ‘we only have uniqueness.’ The link matters, so do some work on it. Uniqueness is rarely an absolute issue—like a link, it influences the probability of a particular chain of events occurring. If impacts are comparable (one extinction seems as bad as another), the team who makes arguments about why their uniqueness and link/internal link arguments demonstrate a higher probability of their predictive outcome will usually win. This maxim applies to case impacts, too.

Theory Debates: Theory is important, but I hate judging debates where a team moves “all in” on minor theory questions. Many of these debates are repetitive and demonstrate a lack of clash, with debaters spewing down blocks and hoping the other team drops the a-sub on the 1AR #4. I have a difficult time understanding how theory can be resolved outside of a ‘competing interpretations’ framework—what does debate look like under your interpretation of how debate should be, and why is that better than what debate looks like like under your opponent’s? Offense/defense questions are of consequence in evaluating which worldview is better, but people often lose when they forget the big picture and get caught up in trivialities. “Arg not team” is usually persuasive, but I can be convinced that some theory violations are so egregious that they warrant a game misconduct penalty instead of a minor. When this happens, it is almost always because a team demonstrated the theory violation made it very difficult for that team to win. I also have a fairly strong bias against voting on “cheap shots.” Alleged abuse seems to even out as a debate progresses. However, you should not view this as a license to drop them at will (Jake Nelson amendment).

Counterplans: The status quo is usually pretty bad, so it’s good to have a counterplan (or ‘alt’ if that’s your game). I think that the “gold standard” for counterplan legitimacy should be specific solvency evidence. Obviously, the necessary degree of specificity is a matter of interpretation, but, like good art, you know it when you see it. On many CP theory questions, I tend towards a 2A outlook, meaning I am suspicious of conditional (if/them) fiat, consultation, dispo/condo, and international fiat. I tend to believe that PICs/PECs and agent counterplans that focus the debate on substantial elements of the plan are good for debate, and counterplans that rely on ‘normal means’ for competition are not. I also think most negatives could avoid a lot of trouble by simply going for their counterplans—it’s often not that hard to concede ‘counterplan does squat’ and go for ‘DA outweighs case’. However, I try to hard to check my biases at the door, so anything is up for debate—just recognize that some theoretical arguments make more sense (to me) than do others.

Rebuttals: Good rebuttalists (and thus successful debaters) resolve arguments in the rebuttals. This means identifying critical pressure points on the various positions in the debate and making arguments about why your cards/warrants/analyts are stronger (read: more persuasive) than those of your opponent. Simply extending one’s arguments and not comparing them to an opponent’s leaves it up to me to decide which argument is ‘better,’ and you will probably not be happy with how I resolve that question without your guidance. I read evidence on questions that are contested, if I want the cite, or if I think the card/arg is interesting. You should also know that I almost always defer to uncontested argument and impact comparisons—I also think that the 2AR is a bit late to answer an impact framework advanced by the block.

Decorum: I believe that exclusive practices (including speech acts) are unacceptable. I am unlikely to vote against you for being offensive, but I will not hesitate to decrease your points if you behave in an inappropriate manner (intentionally engaging in hostile, classist, racist, sexist or heterosexist acts, for example). I recognize that this activity is very intense, but please try to understand that everyone present feels the same pressures and “play nice.”

If you have specific questions, please ask me before the round.