Anderson,+Josh

[[|edit]]
 * Josh Anderson** is a coach at Brentwood. He is a past recipient of the [|Walter Alan Ulrich Award] for placing as top speaker at the [|Tournament of Champions].

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Paradigm
The best advice I can give to debaters who want to win my ballot is to be comparative in the standards debate, to give explicit impact analysis, and to directly weigh arguments.

I am often left with the feeling that the framework debate is irresolvable because both debaters are extending framework justifications without ever a) comparing their extensions to their opponent's extensions; or b) explaining their extensions in terms of some explicitly identified meta-standard. That is to say, that since both debaters are probably extending reasons why their framework is "good" and the other is "bad," you can help yourself considerably if you explain why a) the warrants underlying the "goodness" of your extension assume/trump/precede/encompass/etc the warrants of your opponent's extension; and/or b) the "good" you are asserting synchs up with some higher-order principle.

If the framework debate is indeterminate, I will default to a comparison of each debater's 'offense.' I think this mandates some level of intervention since there is no external mechanism to adjudicate between competing impacts. In this case, I will vote for whichever argument requires me to do the least amount of work. And the easiest way for me decide this is usually to vote for the debater that is weighing arguments. Better than a generic statement that "this outweighs on magnitude" is to make a specific statement that "this outweighs X argument ...."

A few other random things:


 * Theory.** Running theory for the sake of theory is something I consider counter-educational and my preference is for substantive debate. This preference manifests in two specific ways: 1) Close calls on the line-by-line go to the debater answering theory, unless theory is initiated against a strategy or position that makes substantive engagement impossible (or nearly so); 2) Regardless of how you explain the implications of your theory position, my default presumption is to disregard a theoretically illegitimate argument, not punish the debater who ran it by awarding his/her opponent with the win outright. If you want me to deviate from that presumption, you must explicitly point to specific and actual in-round abuse that cannot be remedied by simply rejecting the argument (and I reserve the right to apply my own sensibilities about this). Generic arguments about the time-skew from running theory are not especially persuasive to me. This has two caveats: A) Given negative win skew, I will be more sympathetic to affirmative debaters who initiate theory or deploy an RVI in the face of negative strategies which contribute to the structural causes of that win skew; B) if theory is the only thing left at the end of the debate (e.g. if an affirmative goes 'all-in' on theory or an RVI and does not extend any substantive argument), I will not apply any paradigmatic default to simply reject the argument if the result would be that I vote on presumption for lack of any substantive offense.


 * Using my "ballot as a tool."** I am likely to find an indictment of this framework very persuasive. I am of the opinion that individual debate rounds are not the correct venue for deciding what direction the activity should take or what political projects should be endorsed. Although I will not ignore the flow, I will tend to be more receptive to arguments that are consistent with my own views about what arguments are suitable for my evaluation. I will not be as self-disciplined as normal about suspending my personal judgments; these sorts of frameworks ask me, at least implicitly, to adopt a different adjudicative role than usual, and I therefore feel less bound by tabula rasa constraints. I will feel particularly uncomfortable in circumstances where I am being asked to deliver individualized sanction against a competitor for conduct that occurred outside the debate round.


 * "Pre-standards" Arguments.** I have a higher threshold for voting on such arguments than some other judges. I don't have any philosophical problem with them, but rather, I believe that running these arguments imposes a burden on you to be very explicit about the voting implications of these arguments. So-called 'independent voting issues' or positions with voting implications 'before the standard' need to be clearly warranted *in your first speech* for me to vote on them. I will not vote on an argument first just because it is called 'a priori', and I consider new voting implications in the rebuttal to be illegitimate.


 * Presumption**. Presumption goes to the negative, unless an argument is made in the round to the contrary. That said, I can't think of more than a couple rounds in the last several years where I presumed. I will do my best to find an argument to vote on before presuming. If neither framework is functional at the end of the debate, I will default to a 'net benefits' paradigm and weigh offense. The strategy of 'taking-out' your opponent's framework, while failing to offer a competing framework, in order to make the argument that the judge is disabled from evaluating any of your opponent's offense is not going to be successful in front of me.


 * Speed.** It's fine so long as it's clear. But please build up to your maximum speed--especially when reading your constructive, don't start out at your maximum speed, so that I can get used to your voice. If you are blippy or unclear, know that I will give your opponent a lot of leeway and reserve the right to disregard arguments I feel are undeveloped.


 * Critical arguments.** I will never hold a debater's argumentative approach against them, so run whatever you wish. With this understood, I confess that I am not as well read in critical theory as many other judges. If you wish to run critical arguments in front of me, you therefore have the burden to be very clear as to what you're arguing. The use of complicated rhetoric and jargon to obfuscate arguments is something I sometimes see with these positions and I am quite opposed to it. I get especially frustrated when CX answers are deliberately evasive or refuse to proactively address points of confusion. With any position, but especially with positions that may be confusing (critical or not), I firmly believe in an ethic of accessibility -- you should make sure that you do everything you can in CX to clarify what you're arguing.


 * Framework debates (definitions, resolutional interpretation).** It frustrates me when the relevance of the framework discussion to the rest of the debate is ambiguous. Just like you must impact arguments on the flow, you must explicitly tell me how the framework debate interacts with the rest of the arguments in the round.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.victorybriefsdaily.com/index.php/Josh_Anderson" This page has been accessed 155 times. This page was last modified 07:09, 5 February 2007. Content is available under [|GNU Free Documentation License 1.2].