Woika,+Billy

LD Paradigm for TOC (4/28/11)

 While I primarily debated policy in high school, I participated in several national tournaments in LD and therefore do not consider myself a policy hack in LD. For those reasons, I think off case positions that have policy implications or more generally arguments that are particularly oriented in a policy-type framework may have to be justified before I can evaluate them in the round. However, the pervasive answer that these sorts of arguments "belong in policy" is not a compelling argument especially in reference to arguments that are especially well developed in structure or require additional depth of analysis then is present in "traditional LD args". On that note, Theory and Topicality type arguments globally need to have feasible and developed impacts that tell me why I am forsaking the original question of the resolution as my primary method of evaluating the round. Making rampant claims of abuse (especially in the 1AR) will do more for your opponent then it will for you in my book- being a victim and winning are not synonymous to me. This general spirit of valuing good arguments as opposed to trivialities manifests itself throughout all other aspects of the round. Extensions need to further your point, not repeat what I've already heard. Arguments that might be construed as "blippy" need to be explained in a way that the time commitment justifies my attention. Obviously, the time trade off will not be equivalent or identical, but you need to rely on the substance of the argument rather then expecting your opponent to mishandle or drop it.  Much of my prejudices in debate are primarily influenced by the late Louis Paine III. His experience in debate led him to conclude that the activity is suspended in a state of vapid vacuousness. That is, the unbridled spirit of competition and the drive to progress the event has resulted in a loss of meaning that is either only artificially valuable or completely orbital. In order to move beyond this era of debate, the goal ought not be competitive practices that emphasize the performances of each debater relative to one another, but rather a transcendental drive asymptotically approaching truth within the particularities of the resolution. One way this manifests itself is in the relying on a slew of archaic and pedestrian blocks authored by virtual ghosts. Instead, both my decision and point generosity will heavily reflect your ability to individually think within the round. Merging competitive interests with the intellectual aspects of debate fills the void of inequality produced by unequal access to resources like coaching and blocks and relegates the responsibility and value of winning to the individual rather then the team at large. Coming from a non-dynasty high school, I view this to be imperative to the activity. The way you capitalize on this is t:o make specific arguments that apply to the particular round, have a developed strategy at the end of the round, and most importantly make compelling arguments that could (hypothetically) withstand more scrutiny then a half hour discussion within a debate round. That is not to say I will automatically discount arguments, but since judge intervention can regrettably play a large part in any judge's decision, selecting arguments that generally conform to the aforementioned traits will have substantive effects on my decision. While a dropped pre-standard voter may be an easier strategy, you might be better served to pursue more substantive routes.  Given all of that, I can flow spreading as long you are clear and the claims that you are making are especially clear. If you spread and the speed at which you read analytical arguments is the same or faster then cards then there is a good possibility I will not be able to understand the important components of your case. In terms of the value and standard debate, a race to the middle seems to be the easiest way to encourage constructive clash which will ultimately aid you in the final decision, especially more the an exclusionary framework that stagnates the debate at the first link level. Beyond that, nearly all types of argument structures and content are acceptable in front of me. I have background in a fair amount of critical/philosophy-type arguments as a philosophy major and primarily a K debater, so be sure to be accurate in your representations of authors.

Good Luck

I'm a Sophomore at college at the University of Kentucky, and debated for Stoneman Douglas in high school.

I think debate is primarily a game, and as such, I believe that any strategy that you can execute properly should be used. I will, theoretically vote for anything, so if you're predispositioned to a certain type of argument, it is probably fine. However, I will state my biases to specific arguments because as much as I would like to remain as unbiased as possible, I believe that my interests and opinions will unconsciously affect my decisions.

Topicality- I think topicality is primarily used to waste the time of your opponent in modern debate. For that reason, I tend err very far aff on T debates. Someone has to be REALLY untopical for me to pull the trigger. I'm open to Kritiks of Topicality and have been known to run them myself.

Theory- Abuse claims don't really phase me too much. So, just like T, if you're going to go for theory make sure it is an egregious impediment to debating...or something. I think you can make a much more compelling reason why the argument shouldnt have weight then a voting issue.

CP/DA- I like PICs, process, and agent counterplans a lot. Other types of counterplans will do fine. I am, however, not a fan of politics scenarios. If you do run them, make sure they're not too contrived.

K's- I ran mostly K's in high school. Consequently, I guess I'm more open and more knowledgeable about them then some judges. That's not to say "buzzwords" will fly, but I guess i have a higher propensity to buy critical arguments.