Corrigan,+Abraham

Abraham Corrigan Judge Philosophy for 2013-2014 1.0 Debate Background ---1.1 Debate History ---1.2 Argumentative Background 2.0 How I Judge ---2.1 My Role ---2.2 Speaker Points ---2.3 Preferred Debater Demeanor ---2.4 Nonverbal Cues ---2.5 Verbal Cues 3.0 How I View Arguments ---3.1 Arguments Contain a Claim Warrant & Impact ---3.2 Arguments Are Won/Lost ---3.3 Argument Interaction Matters ---3.4 “Dropped” Arguments <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;">---3.5 Performance/Character Matters <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;">---3.6 The Impact is the locus of the debate <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;">---3.7 I don’t want to call for evidence <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;">4.0 Cross-x <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;">---4.1 The Competitive Conversation <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;">---4.2 CX Determines Debates <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;">---4.3 Yes, Tag Team <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;">---4.4 Yes, You Can Always Use Prep to Ask More Questions <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;">5.0 Topicality/Theory <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;">---5.1 Frame the voting threshold <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;">---5.2 Read Evidence <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;">---5.3 Fairness is less of an impact & more an I/L to Education <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;">---5.4 Theory argument default to reject the argument not the team <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;">6.0 “Framework” <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;">---6.1 Way More Conservative <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;">---6.2 I vote against framework under the following conditions <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;">---6.3 I am yet to hear a coherent reason why talking about government policy is bad. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;">---6.4 Switch sides debate is good <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;">7.0 Counterplans <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;">---7.1 Conditionality <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;">---7.2 Competition <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;">---7.3 Condition/Consult/Commission <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;">---7.4 Agent <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;">---7.5 Advantage <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;">---7.6 CPs require evidence <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;">8.0 Critiques <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;">---8.1 Links should have scenarios <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;">---8.2 Don’t assume I know what you’re talking about <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;">---8.3 Engage the topic <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;">9.0 Disadvantages <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;">---9.1 Agenda DA Theory <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;">---9.2 Turns the case arguments must be comparative <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;"> <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;"> <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">****Updated September 2013 Framework Thoughts**** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Don’t think any of this is really new, more of an explicit clarification. <span style="font-family: Tahoma,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">- <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">The role of the ballot is for me to assess who has done the better debating. I will do my best to assess arguments utilizing the values provided to me in round. <span style="font-family: Tahoma,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">- <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">You will not be able to convince me that I should not evaluate or compare the other teams arguments. The difference between debate and a speech event is that debate is comparative; your arguments only make sense in relationship to those advanced by the other team. Debate!

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">1.0 Debate Background

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;"> 1.1 Debate History – Debated for 8 years (Homewood-Flossmoor, Glenbrook South, Gonzaga University), coached for 6 years (Glenbrook South, Northwestern University, Glenbrook North, Homewood-Flossmoor & University of Kentucky). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">1.2 Argumentative Preference – I want to learn things about the topic. While I generally find the radical left & radical right write the most interesting things about the resolution, you should focus your research and argument development towards what makes you enjoy debate. I like facts and historical examples. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">2.0 How I Judge

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;"> 2.1 My Role – As a judge I believe I have two responsibilities. First, I am obligated to evaluate the desirability of the resolution based on the criteria provided by both teams. Second, I am obligated to maintain the debate as a politically educational sphere. This means there are always limits to free speech & argument development. You don’t always know what’s going on with others.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;"> 2.2 Speaker Points – Evaluated on a number of different things including; debate presence, argument quality (not what the argument is in a ‘real’ sense but what you do with it in a debate), style, evidence quality, how you interact with your partner & your opponents etc. I will give a small speaker point bump for clever incorporation of Shakespeare or music into speeches.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">2.3 Preferred Debater Demeanor – I believe debate is a contest, and as such I am not opposed to heated or aggressive cross-x’s. HOWEVER, there is an important line between being ‘aggressive’ and being ‘a jerk.’ Being aggressive is strategic, being a jerk will again get you lower speaker points.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">2.4 How to Read My Nonverbal Cues – The best thing you can get out of watching me during the debate is an evaluation of my understanding of your argument. If I look confused, it’s because I am. Otherwise, nods are good, head shaking is bad, laughing is contextual.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">2.5 The General Conditions When Verbal Cues Come Into Play – I will interrupt debates if 1) I see cross-x going in an annoying direction (yes, if you win the disad & that it outweighs the case, then you win the disad & that it outweighs the case, true in any framework, next question) 2) you use an acronym I didn’t know 3) I need more info on where the card is from (for whatever reason/curiosity mostly) 4) Someone is being an overwhelming jerk. On average this happens about 2–3 times a tournament.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">3.0 How I Evaluate Arguments

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">3.1 Arguments contain a claim, warrant & impact – Don’t have these then not an argument.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">3.2 Arguments are Won/Lost – I will rarely decide that an argument was not totally won or lost (Given the parameters established in the debate, I should be able to resolve arguments conclusively – 100% yes or no). If I can not resolve a debate definitively one way or the other 1) It’s yall’s fault since I evaluate the claims you make based on the lens you ask me to view them through 2) It means the issue being decided is probably not the key issue in the debate and I’ll first be looking to other arguments base a decision on.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">3.3 Argument Interaction Matters – Each team is responsible for the claims & logical leaps made. For example, if you read the Khalilizad hegemony impact then you are responsible for defending the claims and assumptions that underpin your impact claims. This doesn’t mean that I think you have to defend the specific rhetorical phrasing that Khalilizad uses or that I don’t believe you should be able to leverage offensive defenses of Khalilizad’s logic against those types of arguments. What it does mean is *I will reward* the team that makes smart cross applications between contradictory arguments and navigates the arguments behind the arguments rather than the team who empties the box & reads 100 cards. I.E. stop running both the Deterrence disad & the ‘Securitization k’ in the same 1nc without a reason why that’s ok beyond “conditionality.” And if you are affirmative make sure you use your opponents arguments against them.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">3.4 “Dropped” Arguments – Arguments are rarely truly dropped. Generally, I consider a dropped argument one that a team failed to answer initially & the second time they got to answer it they failed to utilize existing and predictable cross applications from other parts of the debate. I believe this is better than just checking out once a team concedes permutations are a voting issue or ‘no neg fiat’ as the fifth point on your conditionality block because it encourages teams to make arguments rather than point out mistakes. This means if the other team has ‘dropped’ one of your arguments, you should figure out where and which other claims they’ve made that are responsive and reply to them to maintain your strategic advantage. A “dropped” argument is not a signal to stop debating or to steal a Pointer metaphor ‘take your foot from off your opponent’s throat.’

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">3.5 Performance/Character Matters – This is obviously hard to quantify (other than for speaker points) but how you present yourself affects the credibility of your argument. When reading a position, you need to ask yourselves what type of character am I representing. If, in a particular negative debate I want to advance the capitalism critique, then I need to make sure I present my opinions on certain aspects of culture + ways of viewing the world than if I were reading the deterrence da and consult nato. As long as you keep your eyes on the prize (ballot) it’s a good rule of thumb that you can never be too militant (remember, I find radical left/right most interesting).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">3.6 The impact is the locus of the debate – My default assumption is that stuff you say only matters insofar as it explains why it means you win; i.e. a claims implication on the ballot. When evaluating a debate, I will almost always start at the top to determine which impacts are the ones I should be concerned with avoiding/embracing. While I’m sure some will read this as blasphemy, I think a lot of the blame for the unreasonable proliferation of ‘extinction’ level claims is due to our willingness as a community to focus on having an argument ‘get to something’ rather than address the meaningfulness of the something its gotten to. I think it would greatly improve the debate community if we developed a higher standard for what constitutes a ‘likely & significant impact.’

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">3.7 I don’t want to call for evidence – Evidence that isn’t comparatively explained isn’t evidence that I want to read. I will call for evidence when 1.) I have to resolve a factual claim contested by both teams 2.) I think it might be worth stealing for my debaters 3.) I’m confused because neither team has done a sufficient job structuring and impacting claims made in the debate 4.) I want to know what your authors are actually saying to be able to give a better explanation of what I think a losing team should have done 5.) I’m curious.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">4.0 Cross-X

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">4.1 The Competitive Conversation – Successful cross-x is exclusively a conversation with the judge. All things coming out of your mouth that are not explaining why I vote for you (in the form of a question) are helping your opponent. Thus, it never makes sense to get upset or in tense arguments with your opponents because you aren’t talking to them to begin with. Their responses are only relevant insofar as you can use them as evidence to support your arguments. The difference for me between being aggressive & being a jerk largely centers on this distinction. Aggressive cross-xers go after arguments for the judge, Jerky cross-xers go after opponents generally for themselves.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">4.2 CX Determines Debates – Cross-x is 12 minutes of extra speech time for the team that wants it. I flow cross-x so if you aren’t using it to explain, set up or indict key arguments you will frustrate me you’re your wasted cross-x potential and your speaker points will likely suffer.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">4.3 Yes, Tag Team

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">4.4 Yes, You Can Always Use Prep to Ask More Questions

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">5.0 Topicality/Theory

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">5.1 Frame the voting threshold – One of the bigger problems for me when judging T debates is a lack of discussion connecting the standards with why that requires rejecting the team. If you want me to vote neg then let me know the doom & destruction awaiting the debate community should we accept the 1ac into the topic.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">5.2 Read Evidence – Read evidence! Predictability & education claims about the topic should not (in an ideal world) be based on the opinion of one team. Show me that there is a scholastic basis for your T claims and I will be substantially more likely to find them compelling.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">5.3 Fairness is less of an impact & more an I/L to Education – Fairness as an impact makes me feel like I have to evaluate the capacities of each debater which seems weird & subjective. I think these arguments make the most sense when they are framed in terms of how the community as a whole is impacted which in most cases seems to be more of an education argument.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">5.4 Theory argument default to reject the argument not the team

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">6.0 “Framework” <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">6.1 Way More Conservative --- Affs should 1.) talk about the resolution and 2.) defend a resolved political strategy for material change. I think these are the best conditions to produce the highest quality debates and highest quality debaters. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">6.2 I vote against framework under the following conditions --- 1.) Neg does not extend an external impact 2.) Aff gets the neg to defend something unnecessarily or 3.) The Neg concedes talking about government policy is bad. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">6.3 I am yet to hear a coherent reason why talking about government policy is bad --- Even the majority of the traditional ‘politics bad’ debate authors don’t really seem to be saying ‘never mention anything about government policy.’ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">6.4 Switch Sides Debate is Good

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">7.0 Counterplans <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">7.1 Conditionality – Look, I’ve debated on the negative in college. I know how rare that ideal unconditional negative cp strategy comes around. That being said, the trend towards 3 cps & a k disturbs my innate 2a sensibilities. The reasonable interpretation of conditionality I tend to err towards is the neg gets to test the aff with a cp, a k, & the status quo. This doesn’t mean I’ll check in on conditionality for anything over that number. But realize that the more your 1nc looks like you’re just throwing shit at the wall, the more I’m willing to buy the affirmative argument that conditionality can become a tool to avoid real debate. Contradictory advocacies or ones that are strategically purposeless make me want to vote on conditionality. Multiple, well thought out tests of 1ac claims do not.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">7.2 Competition – I think the current state of counterplan competition is pretty much nonsense. I tend to think that functual competition makes the plan text irrelevant & textual competition legitimizes all sorts of counterplans that no one really wants to have to be prepared to debate (Nomo, Do the plan in pictures etc). That being said, I don’t really have a good alternative. When resolving cp competition debates I will generally defer to evidence. If you have evidence from the topic that says your cp is an important alternative option to the plan then generally I’ll be down.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">7.3 Condition/Consult/Commission – This is an area where specific competition evidence can easily sway me one way or the other. All of these cps seem to be relevant to democracy assistance (less so for the high school space topic) so if you have reasonable evidence & arguments about why the affirmative should be prepared to deal with them you’ll be good.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">7.4 Agent – The affirmative is only required to specify their actor if the evidence requires it. My default is that the courts/congress/state department/USAID cp should not be something the affirmative should have to prepare for unless you have extremely specific evidence or the plan text happens to specify.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">7.5 Advantage – These are fine, but the more planks & actors, the more my theory sense tingles. If you’re negative, the way to assure you don’t loose on theory is by having solvency evidence that describes the cp.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">7.6 CPs require evidence – Cp texts without solvency evidence are not arguments. Cps without evidence make me suspicious about whether it’s predictable or reasonable to ask the affirmative to prepare for.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">8.0 Critiques <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">8.1 Links should have scenarios – Good link arguments should be able to explain causal chains for why the affirmative is a bad idea. The standard for specificity in argument & evidence is not radically different from a disad. Aff takes the state as a given, state = genocide is no more compelling than a bad focus disadvantage. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">8.2 Don’t assume I know what you’re talking about – Not only is it extremely possible that I lack a complete understanding of whatever theorist you’re talking about, but it’s entirely possible that the critical reading I’ve done uses the terms you’re utilizing in a completely different manner leaving me utterly befuddled. As it is the case with all arguments, I will do my best to keep reasonably informed on the warrants behind the arguments on the topic however you should not assume I automatically can speak the random graduate level philosophy of the week. Explanation is your friend. There is 0 benefit to a deferral strategy that tricks the other team if you also trick the judge. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">8.3 Engage the topic – There is k ground unique to the topic. Cut it. I don’t want to judge normativity or doubling. Your k should teach me something new/interesting about the topic. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">9.0 Disadvantages <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">9.1 Agenda DA Theory – I don’t like the agenda DA because I think it’s causing debate evolution to stagnate. That being said, I don’t think there is really a coherent theory argument to justify its total exclusion. Intrinsicness seems to me to be largely a nonstarter. The entire link story is about why a reasonable policymaker could not choose both options because of the political realities in Congress. Vote No/w similarly doesn’t make any sense unless congress is your actor & you have a very contextually developed articulation of what fiat of the plan means. The one argument I do find compelling is the claim that fiat requires universal support from every actor in the USFG. This interpretation not only seems consistent with the resolution but also seems necessary to overcome the affirmatives inherent burden. Yes, parts of the government oppose the plan now. That’s why it’s not happening. I don’t think this makes running the agenda da impossible, however I do believe it requires more work by the negative to establish the effects of outside actors (lobby groups, other countries etc) on congress or requires the negative to read something more like Obama bad. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">9.2 Turns the case arguments must be comparative --- Turns the case debates do not occur in a vacuum; absent specific comparison to affirmative solvency claims/cards I am more likely to view these arguments with suspicion.