Berk,+Jamie

Name: Jamie Berk Affiliation: MBA, Dartmouth

With most judges, there is a surprisingly weak correlation between their stated biases and how they actually vote. I think most judges might even surprise themselves with how far they venture from their bearings when confronted with the reality that no argument appears in a vacuum. I think the more consistent predictor of how a judge evaluates debates lies in their approach to evidence, and concomitantly, their willingness to assign certain arguments "truth value." Notice that "truth" is often used to describe both the savvy analytic and the high-quality card - methods of argument that are otherwise too often viewed in opposition. I think my approach to evidence evaluation clarifies this point:
 * GENERAL**

It is the burden of the debater advancing a piece of evidence to prove why that evidence provides a more qualified or otherwise unique perspective from that which debaters themselves can offer. That means you need to do two things to make a piece of evidence persuasive: 1. Indicate why the argument needs external substantiation. Evidence is a persuasive tool, but by itself provides no a priori reason for its necessity. On some issues, debaters are as qualified as anyone to make analysis: I have never understood why a professor of comparative literature is necessarily more qualified than a debater to philosophize about the world. Therefore, I think judges read too many cards, especially in K debates. Unless your K evidence offers some kind of unique contextuality or empirical proof that you heavily lean on in the debate, you shouldn't count on me to fill in the blanks by reading it. 2. Prove why this person is qualified. Again, ask yourself why this person's opinion is more valid than your own. The relative degrees in which you answer that question will determine how, if at all, I weigh a staff reporter versus a professor, PhD versus accomplished journalist, or intelligence analyst versus graduate student.

Accordingly, I strongly believe that it is the burden of the proponent of an argument to prove an argument's logicality and internal consistency. That means that I will not vote on an argument I don't understand. I know that seems obvious, but it's important: you can tell me that international fiat is a reason to reject the team until you’re blue in the face, but until you provide a reason that makes sense to me, even if the other team completely drops it, I will just reject the argument. I don't see the situation any differently from that of the debater who just says “voting issue” after every sentence. Your duty as a debater is to persuade me - __I will usually vote for the team that controls the "narrative" of the debate, most clearly answers its central questions, and demonstrates the best understanding of how local arguments cohere into an overarching vision of the round.__

__Disads/Case:__ I'm a big fan of the old, meat-and-potatoes, disad and case strategy. I despise the offense/defense paradigm (for more on this, read Tripp Rebrovick's philosophy, which I had not read prior to writing my own, but in hindsight am struck with its similarity).
 * SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS**

__Theory:__ It's very hard to convince me that conditionality is bad (even if there are multiple conditional positions). I am very skeptical of counterplans that include the entirety of the plan (consultation, delay), though I can be persuaded that certain condition-esque counterplans are competitive if they have a very clear grounding in the literature base (that is, the choice between the plan and the counterplan is an important one for actual policymakers). I am also skeptical of any counterplan that forces a choice that no rational decisionmaker could make (international, states, agent). I don't think textual competition makes a lick of sense.

__Topicality__: I think it's the neg's burden to prove that the aff doesn't provide a reasonable limit on the topic; the aff doesn’t need to provide the best interpretation, just a workable one. That said, I think plenty of T violations prove that the aff doesn’t give the neg a fighting chance. If you’re neg, tell me why the aff’s interpretation prevents you from having a fair shot at winning – it's not enough to tell me that the world for the neg would be slightly better if every aff team adopted your interpretation.

__Kritiks:__ Don’t have any particularly strong biases here. I am pretty familiar with "The Literature," as many like to say (even though I think that's a funny way of putting things). I don't think "framework" arguments make any sense, as it is always a question of the desirability of the affirmative plan (the negative topicality/framework arguments about the predictability of the aff's method are a different matter, though, and can be very persuasive).

__Cross-X:__ Don’t waste it. A smart and well-directed effort here will earn you good speaker points.

Most importantly, have fun. You're in high school - enjoy yourself a little. Don't let debate become a stressful chore. I learned the most and sowed the best memories when I let myself relax.

I'll try my hardest to do justice to the incredible amount of work you've put in. Any questions, just ask.

Revised 12/20/08