Green,+Edward

This statement is written for the PHSSL State Tournament at Bloomsburg University in March, 2017. I will be judging policy debate for the first time. Please keep in mind that I'm inexperienced in listening to speech at the rapidity that is prevalent in policy debate. I will do my utmost to follow. Please help me by not spreading faster than is absolutely necessary to present a complete case, enunciating clearly, and being crystal clear in presenting the logical structure of your case.

My overall philosophy is that good debate has to do with lucid exposition of cogent arguments, addressed to attentive and intelligent persons who, however, cannot be presumed to have arcane background knowledge. I am looking for a fully explained, logically tight case, with firm evidential support, that focuses on the most salient premises. The debate should be a stimulating confrontation between proponents of competing ideas, not just a contest of skill in rhetorical and strategic maneuvers.

I judge by stipulating that a topical plan can be enacted by fiat. A kritik that begins, "Let's not delude ourselves -- nothing is going to be enacted as a consequent of what happens in this room..." contradicts that stipulation. But an argument such that "The aff plan would create an environment in which citizens would cease to regard themselves as autonomous moral agents...", which may be regarded as a form of kritik, would not contradict the stipulation.

I perceive some issues of fairness that can arise with counterplans. I will not vote for a plan-inclusive counterplan or allow a counterplan to be kicked in its entirety, even if aff argues a permuatation, unless aff raises a procedural argument to the counterplan. If a plank is kicked, neg has burden of proof to show that what remains is competitive with the aff plan.

Ordinarily I prefer that the focus stay as tightly as possible on the resolution itself. But, if you *sincerely* believe that your opponents are being clearly, significantly abusive, then I welcome procedural arguments that justify why they should not win on that basis.