Durham,+Benjamin


 * 1) 1 THING WITH ME: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A BAD JUDGE, JUST BAD JUDGE ADAPTATION. Beyond the limits of our community, people are talking about these same issues. We learn from them, and they can learn from us! We have to become better at adapting our communication skills within our community, so the knowledge we gain from our activity can spillover into the “real-world.” Let’s make sure our time together is spent __positively__ engaging in discussions about this year’s debate topic.

Framework: Fiat has a positive purpose in our activity-- but what that purpose IS is up for debate.

Disads: Pretty Traditional in terms of how I view these kinds of arguments: Gotta be unique, gotta link- the more specific the better, and gotta have an internal link to the impact. I don’t think that disads have to have an end point that goes nuclear- or even to state to state based wars. The impact does have to show how the affirmative results in making things worse than the status quo. In the event this is framework from which I am to evaluate the debate, timeframe, likelihood and death “count” are all important elements I will consider in contrast to the affirmative’s advantages.

Evidence comparison is clutch. I am not much for a bunch of spew-tron evidence “walls” that overwhelm opponents while avoiding making an educated response. Make reference to the warrants in your evidence compared to the warrants (or lack thereof) in their evidence. In the “real world,” this is one of the more appropriate ways to communicate with others when trying to implement an idea or a policy.

In the event of “dropped arguments”- please extend them appropriately. Impact your argument and pre-empt attempts at making new responses in the next speech. “They conceded X argument” will not suffice.

Topicality: Fairness and Ground are of utmost importance. I have a tendency to vote more for in-round proof of abuse than potential abuse... But don’t think you will get my ballot if you intentionally read a bunch of generic disads with that don’t specifically link with a T arg and then complain about not having an argument. Negative teams do not have the “//right”// to any particular argument. I consider the Resolution as the point of departure for how we intellectually approach this topic. Its terms of art can be interpreted with innovation to allow us to think differently about the federal government, the private sector, the military, and their relationships to outer space politics.

CounterPlans: The Negative get’s em. If they are abusive and the aff can prove it, I will consider not voting for the argument. If you think I should consider voting down the team because they ran said abusive argument, tell me why- I might consider it. But make a complete argument- claim and warrant. Don’t just whine. There is no crying in debate. Make a constructive argument in response. Ultimately, I look at CP’s from a strategists perspective- if we have two competing ideas of how to “solve” for the “harm” outlined by both teams, I will consider each strategy and also any others “tests” of those strategies and their assumed effectiveness.

Kritiks: Yes, I ran them in High School and College. But that doesn’t mean I necessarily like hearing them __every__ debate round. Too much time is spent articulating links, with not enough time to spare articulating the implication in the context of the affirmative’s proposed policy. Complete the argument and don’t get caught up in K “lingo”- the rhetoric of kritiks and their catch phrases have become what we depend on in our competitive, flogocentric community- push yourself farther intellectually, empower your voice and articulate YOUR application of the argument. We are all authors. Kritiks don’t have to have “unique impacts” and they don’t have to have an //alternative// that //solves// for those impacts- A Kritik can function as a critique, which IS an alternative. Words have power. Use them wisely.

Affirmative: I am more of a person who is compelled to do something- unless doing “that something” makes things worse than they already are. Your 1AC is a mighty sword. Wield it well. Reference 1AC authors and different parts of your 1AC throughout your speeches. A generic “Realism Good or Cap Good” frontline won’t cut it if you want my ballot. If you don’t explain to me why a realist framework is good in the //context// of your affirmative, you will make it a lot easier for me to not feel compelled to act on your behalf...

Debate is a communication activity- we should not forget that it is not just about the concepts we discuss, but //how// we discuss them. I reward good speakers- inflection, intonation, as well as body language, are all factors that play a role in determining speaker points.