Weisberger,+Dave


 * ==Updated August 2015 specific to HS Surveillance topic... (changes to topicality mainly) ==

==I debated for 8 years culminating in successive quarterfinal losses at the NDT when I was debating for Northwestern. After a long hiatus from the debate community, I returned to coaching and judging debate in 2012. While the bulk of my experience was in traditional policy debate, I have been actively coaching critical debating for 3 years. My philosophy is essentially that everything is up for debate in a round. (except for speaking times) That said, there are some arguments that I find more persuasive than others, particularly with respect to framework, Ks, and other issues. ==

==Framework -- While I will evaluate any framework arguments presented, my bias is in favor of frameworks that create clash. I do believe that the principal goal of debate is to develop critical thinking skills as opposed to performance skills, thus a framework debate which asks me to evaluate one versus the other is going to resolve in favor of critical thinking. That said, rote recitations of standards based on education and research burdens are not particularly persuasive. The key to framework debate is to keep the arguments clear and on point. I have seen many examples of debaters confusing framework with decision rules. For the sake of clarity, I believe that framework arguments define the METHODOLOGY that a judge should use to evaluate a round (as a judge/legislator/executive/citizen/teacher/etc), whereas a decision rule is typically an argument in favor of a particular ethical construct (utilitarianism / moral relativism / etc) As for other issues, here are my thoughts: ==

==Topicality -- I believe that topicality should be about relevance or educational benefit. Arguments based on technical definitions are not particularly persuasive and examples of limits need to be proven. On this years surveillance topic, negative teams running T against critical AFFs that do NOT object to either specific USFG surveillance programs or USFG use of surveillance as a means of control will, however, find me extremely receptive. This is due to the fact that the vast majority of criticisms of T and Framework are based on critiques of the State, which THIS topic enables. This does not mean that I will require a standard "USFG should" plan text; micro-political or other critical advocasies are fine as long as they criticize USFG surveillance. That said, I have voted many times for critical AFFs that eschew relevant topic areas based on their framework arguments pointing out the educational benefits of their approach. ==

==Advantages / Disadvantages -- Policy debates that feature straight up negative strategies which argue that the disadvantages of a plan outweigh the advantages are becoming increasingly rare. That said, I will admit to enjoying those debates and, in particular, good analysis on probabilities and terminal impacts. ==

==Critiques -- I believe that negative critiques which challenge the fundamental philosophical assumptions of the resolution or a particular AFF are excellent strategic choices. That said, I have several concerns with many negative critiques, the most important is that many teams do not understand their own arguments. In my opinion, there are two types of critiques: Arguments that the AFF rhetoric or philosophy create or could create an impact and Arguments that the AFF is fundamentally inconsistent with an ALTERNATIVE whose adoption will result in a more significant net benefit than the AFF. The first type of critique is essentially a disadvantage, except that the "link" is based on rhetoric or philosophy rather than a specific causality from the plan itself. That link depends upon the notion that the words used in the debate are important and need to be considered directly by the judge. (which is a notion that I am pre-disposed to agreeing with, but needs to be argued) The second type of critique is more prevalent, however. The standard which I will use to evaluate those criticisms is to directly evaluate the claim of competition. If the Neg can prove that their alternative is indeed fundamentally inconsistent with the AFF, then I will weigh the critique. If, however, there is no inconsistency, then Perm arguments are often successful. If you rely on this type of argument consistently, consider striking me if you are not very good at explaining why your criticism applies to the AFF more than the status quo... ==

==UPDATE 2/15 -- Critical AFFs: I generally am fine with most critical affirmative strategies, but I do think there is a difference between advocacies of actions versus those that present an analytic method (often called a critical "lens") In the case of a critical AFF that does not specify a particular policy or social action, PERMS are a hard argument for the AFF to win in front of me. In those cases, where the AFF is clearly an intellectual method or way of viewing the world, I will typically agree with a Negative Strategy that positions their Kritic as a Counter-Method. Of course, for the Negative to win a counter-method, they have to prove its superiority... ==

**Conditionality -- I firmly believe that AFF conditionality would destroy debate. Thus, critical teams that do not have a well defined advocacy could lose rounds if the Negative can prove that the AFF is either severing out of their speech acts or is shifting the basis of their advocacy. For example, if a Negative team makes a reasonable argument that an AFF PERM is the same as conditional advocacy or severance and the AFF does not refute that, I may well vote Neg if the AFF does indeed extend any of their perm arguments.**

**Negative conditionality is generally OK. That said, performative contradiction is not conditionality. Teams that run contradictory positions could be voted down if their opponent points out the contradiction and justifies why such actions hurt debate. In addition, double turns can be a game winner (a clear example is a negative that runs a turn to an AFF that claims economic growth based on government incompetance AND a De-Development disadvantage that claims to outweigh everything. In that case the AFF can simply agree to both and capture the impact of De-Dev...) A team that points out a double turn will often win and get bonus speaker points from me...**

==Abuse arguments -- I have never voted on an abuse argument other than taking evidence out of context. I doubt seriously that I ever will. If a team brings up new arguments in rebuttals, I will ignore them, but not vote against that team. 2NC is a constructive speech, so I will often allow new arguments. That said, I will give 2AR more lattitude to read new evidence against those arguments. If a team is mean spirited, abusive and generally offensive, it will seriously hurt their speaker points, however. I generally believe in disclosure pre debate, but there are certain circumstances where disclosure could be avoided such as a new argument or a case where one teams coach is not available. In all cases of abuse arguments, malicious intent is going to have to be proven to get met to vote on the argument. ==

||