Baldis,+Charles+(Nate)

On the Middle East Topic:

-I'm neutral on T Quid Pro Quo.

-I think foreign assistance plans should probably spend money.

-I think the topic is big enough to where I have very little leniency for extra-topical plan planks (e.g. fiating action towards Israel as well).

-I think consultation counterplans are fine--I won't dock any speaker points, I won't look for ways to vote against you, etc. Just keep in mind that the theory arguments against the position are probably better than the theory arguments justifying it, so make sure you aren't undercovering that portion of the debate.

-I want to hear more politics.

Quick background:

I've debated for 3 and 1/2 years for Liberty. In that time, I've run and gone for anything from Kritiks, T, many different theory positions, 4 Cps and a K (in one round), Counterplan-Politics, purely DA and case debate, and just about every other non-performance position available. Presidential elections was probably my favorite DA of all time because of its sheer size. I also wrote and ran Heidegger as an affirmative on the energy topic.

Some general info:

I won't pretend to be a blank slate. I'll try as hard as I can to make sure my biases won't influence my decision, but I'm still only human. If you run run four conditional CPs/Ks that screw over an affirmative, and for some reason the aff doesn't go for conditionality, I'll likely look for ways to vote affirmative at the end of the round--especially when its close. This is also true of the more ridiculous or morally questionable arguments.

I tend to be very line-by-line inclined in terms of dropped arguments, but I am very open to accepting articulations as to why something is justified or really only a new extrapolation or cross-application instead of just brand new. This is especially true for 1ARs--it shouldn't be too diffucult to justify new arguments here after all the new arguments that have likely been made in the block. If in one of the last three rebuttals you think there is a distinct possibility you may lose an argument because its just too new, then do some explaining. If the 2AR cleverly discos (or some such thing) using only new analysis of the previously made arguments in the debate, I evaluate it as if the neg had an opportunity to answer said analysis in the opposite direction. Some may consider this to be slightly interventionist, but this way the aff doesn't get screwed by blanket rejection of the seeming newness and the neg doesn't get screwed by the complete strategy shift of the aff.

That being said, arguments have a threshold for acceptibility. If you make a random analytic as to why Bush has no political capital that makes no sense to me and the other team completely drops it, I won't give it to you. Arguments must be both claim and warrant--I won't penalize anyone for ignoring a warrantless claim (though I prefer it if they pointed out that it was a warrantless claim). Of course, my threshold for what constitutes a warrant is not unreasonably high.

Debate comes first. By this, I mean that if you think anything else in the round is more important than preserving the activity, then I'm the wrong judge for you. This generally means that questions of topicality, theory, and ethical conduct come first in any debate. If you want to beat these arguments, your best bet is to win the argument that A) in this particular situation (or in every situation), whichever of those questions at issue isn't so important for the activity, B) you don't violate them, or C) you somehow maintain/improve the activity of debate in a redeeming/overwhelming way.

At the heart of all my preferences and predispositions lies the belief that they are true/best for debate. This means that if you can persuade me otherwise (or persuade me to make exceptions), I could theoretically vote on anything.

Evidence: Evidence is something I generally look at as something debaters provide simply to establish the facts behind their arguments; it does not constitute the argument itself. Qualifications only matter when evaluating competing claims about the facts. A good analytic can easily beat a bad piece of evidence. Cutting evidence from a person on a blog without ANY qualifications is no better than making a claim about the facts yourself (but only if the other team points it out). I'll only call for and evaluate evidence if its explicitly cited or contested somewhere in the last two speeches (unless, of course, I'm simply curious about it, in which case it probably won't affect my decision).

C-X: Its binding, if I remember what was said. The interactive nature of cx makes it a good place to earn speaker points if you can look competent and confident without appearing arrogant. Don't lie about your evidence, and don't feel bad about saying "I don't know" if you don't think it's a question to which you should be expected to know the answer. I'm relatively open to what you can do, so take advantage of teams who ask you questions about something you didn't address by reading new evidence to answer them. Frankly, while I try to pay attention to cx, I frequently find my attention drifting if little of interest is said. Generally speaking, the team that can control the characterization of their opponents position in cx will probably gain more credence in the rebuttals when attempting to do the same.

Topicality and theory: I enjoy a good T/theory debate, and I won't feel dirty about voting on (for example) a seemingly silly spec argument if its run well (this does not extend to such things as reverse voters on T). That said, a bad T/theory debate makes me want to shoot myself and does horrible things to your speaker points. It is extremely difficult to sway me from viewing topicality as a matter of competing interpretations--not that it can't be done. For theory, I am more inclined to look for abuse on the flow, but again, it is not necessary for me to pull the trigger. For those defending against theory or topicality, I do not require offense on a flow to win the debate (though it is much, much preferred)--unlike other parts of debate, there is such a thing as a 100% defensive takeout that is still contested. Reasonability, I think, is an acceptable affirmative response on Topicality; though I think a competent negative team will never lose to it. Keep in mind that I may have a hard time flowing if you go too fast on any T or theory debate.

Though I am not predisposed to vote in any particular way on theoretical arguments, I do think that when fully developed on both sides, the arguments tend to follow this pattern (assuming the appropriate counterinterpretations are made): -Conditionality=aff -Dispositionality (in most of its various interpretations)=neg -PICs=neg, as long as there is sufficient evidentiary support to expect the aff to be prepared for it -Multiple actor CPs=depends on the scale and number of actors, but likely neg -Consultation CPs=aff -Performative contradictions=aff, though a "reject the argument not the team" would seem to be more reasonable than a voter -Vagueness=neutral, though against K alternatives it would seem to function best as a solvency takeout, and for plan texts it seems to function best as a "this justifies our links," but I'll pull the trigger either way if persuaded to do so

Actually, my comments on the last two positions applies most everywhere on theory debates--weaker impacts are more likely to be granted than voting issues. Make the issue come down to me sticking them to the CP, forcing a link to your offcase position, or rejecting a specific set/type of arguments outright as opposed to voting against the other team, and I'm more likely to give it to you.

As for the question of needing to spend six minutes in the 2R before getting voted on, I don't think it's necessary to win the debate, but there is a perceptual and strategic advantage to doing so. For example, if I happen to completely disagree with you on a certain argument, even though you're arguing it well, I may be more inclined to find some reason to disregard it if you go for the substance of the debate as well, so that I can look and decide the round there. In other words, depending on the argument, you may need to force my hand--don't let me get distracted with anything else. Second, if you go all in on one violation, I'm likely to give you more credit as being fully confident in that position, whereas splitting your strategy may indicate a lack of belief on your part of your ability to win it. Of course, such a perception may not exist at all when splitting your strategy (you very well could be winning everything), and, if present, it will likely not influence my vote, but it will probably affect your speaker points.

Disadvantages: I like them. The more specific, the better. That said, I really, really enjoy a good politics debate (key word: "good"), with layered uniqueness and link arguments and well articulated impact scenarios. I think that the generic nature of any disad can be made up for by researching hyper-specific link stories. 2NC/1NR impact analysis (preferably at the top) is highly desirable. You should probably know that I'm not very open to intrinsicness arguments against politics or other DAs, and negatives should drop a violation in the block if they hear what sounds like one.

Counterplans: I like them. I've already discussed my position on their theoretical nature, and beyond that, the only rules that apply are "specific is better" and "competition is essential." If the affirmative has no solvency deficit to the CP and only defense to the net benefit in the 2AC, they will likely lose (theory aside). I think that functional competition is a much better standard than textual competition for counterplans, though I can see the merit of both. For the affirmatives, it is most strategic to keep your permutations as vague as they can be until the 2AR, so if there is no theory or any real flushing out by the negative of what the perm actually is, you're probably in good shape. On that note, negatives should make sure to clarify what the perm is very early on so it is answered effectively, and if you're nervous about where it may go or what it may turn into, get them to write it down or read some theory.

Kritiks: I like them--(though if they're run poorly, they're probably less enjoyable than most other positions run poorly, with the possible exception of T). Make sure your evidence supports your claims, and make sure that you can appropriately explain how the criticism should be applied in the context of a policy advocacy (or whether I should evaluate the policy advocacy at all). For the aff, don't let the case become irrelevent in evaluating the K--there is no reason your policy implications are less important than the implications of the Kritik (the notion of arbitrary "pre-fiat" is crap, label it as such). The only way the K impacts can be evaluted first is if the neg has evidence saying they should be (i.e. representations have to be decided before policy, ontology before ethics, etc.). The best Kritiks can function in a framework where I as a policymaker would vote for them. I don't generally prefer arguments about framework (by "framework" I refer to the distinction between policy and non-policy) that run to the exclusionary side of the issue (which seems to be the case for most teams who initiate the discussion). It shouldn't be too difficult to win in front of me that inclusion of both K and policy frameworks would be best.

As for permutations, my comments in the Counterplans section applies in full force. The same principle (keeping it vague until the 2R) applies to alternatives as well. Affirmatives, be creative with your permutations. If they say "reject all of X," then perm, reject all of X except the plan, with the net benefit of totalizing alternatives being bad. If they say "embrace the aff harms," then perm, embrace the symbolic representation of those harms while voting to prevent them via the plan. Or perm, grant some defense on that advantage to embrace the aff's harms, then go for your other advantages. whatever you do, don't just limit yourself to "do both."

There are certain Kritiks (or ways of running Kritiks) that I do not prefer (notice I didn't say I'd reject them), and they are as follows: -Ks that involve calling the other team racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. (except in cases where its blatantly true, or when countering a strategy where the other team is being similarly critical) -links of omission (e.g. you don't deal with the native americans before you talk about the Middle East) -generic Ks that the neg does not at least try to apply specifically (i.e. statism) -Ks that depend on Zizek as a primary author (its not that I won't vote on it, its just that I won't like it)

Critical (or activist) affirmatives are fine in front of me as long as you defend the resolution (which includes the advocacy of state action)--the notion in the forefront of my mind is predictable negative ground.

Impact analysis: Everyone seems to be aware of the importance of impact analysis, which is why I find it surprising that so many debaters deprioritize it.

Timeframe analysis is not remarkably persuasive when placed directly against the other two major standards, though it is quite useful as a tiebreaker argument. The exception to this lies at the extremes because the further away (chronologically) the nuclear war predicted by your evidence is supposed to happen, the less likely it is that it will ever happen, and you and your author lose credibility on that point--another e.g. is that if you think your "global warming will destroy the earth in 200 years" impact outweighs, think again, because there are thousands of possible intervening forces which can make your impact meaningless (who knows, maybe we'll be living on Mars by then)

Comparing the importance of magnitude to the importance of probability is like comparing water to oxygen in their respective importance for the human body, but comparing a impact with a huge magnitude and near zero probability will probably lose to an impact with weak magnitude and certain probability for the simple reason that even a very weak impact can still be significant (i.e. 36 people dying = not so big in debate, yet still worth voting for) while big impacts with probabilities of near zero are virtually limitless (i.e. Russia might nuke us tomorrow, global warming could spike tenfold, the U.S. might invade China, oil could instantaneously deplete, etc.) and thus impossible to recognize as a threat to which we should respond.

One very effective tactic is to point out different ways you can access your opponents' impacts, from general catch-alls (e.g. our economic decline leading to war impact outweighs their racism because economic decline both hits minorities harder and sparks greater societal racism in the downswing) to more specific scenarios (e.g. our Japanese prolif scenario outweighs their Indian prolif scenario because we spark both Chinese and Russian prolif, causing Indian prolif anyway, whereas they only access Chinese prolif, which the Russians aren't perturbed by). This kind of analysis can be made in almost any situation in various different ways, all it requires is a little creativity. Many positions lose their perceptive credibility simply because they don't seem like they would ever really happen, which is why I very much enjoy when debaters turn their impact analysis into a realistic story.

Performance: Not my personal preference. I respect it, I can understand why people do it, and I'll vote for it, but its not going to get you anywhere in front of me unless you make actual arguments within your performance.

Personal advocacies: Wrong forum. This is a game, not a place to start a movement. Not that I'm not sympathetic, but with the whole "game" thing in mind, its just not fair to expect the boring white dude from Indiana (refering to a former co-debater) with no background or experience with any particular oppression or whatever to have to provide some competing personal story to win a round. Your arguments are not your children, don't get offended when someone attacks them.

I'm not sure how I view bringing personal experiences as evidence into a debate--there may potentially some unfairness involved, but then again, it could just be a different type of research. Persuade me.