Barnes,+Andrew

Andrew Barnes

JUDGING PHILOSOPHY

I think the topic is important. I think affirming a topic action is important (does not necessarily require a plan). I think critiques of the status quo as a justification to vote affirmative are sweet. I think critiques of the affirmative are sweet. Disads, PIC's and especially case arguments are equally sweet.

Additionally, I want to make it clear that I think ANY argument can be educational or interesting but it does not necessarily follow that that particular argument has a rightful place in competitive debate. In general, I think theory is about debating what communal practices effect are on competitive equity and ability as judges and students to learn and develop new skills as a result of our participation in this activity. So, have an interpretation for debate, demonstrate why that interpretation is best for fair competition and if necessary discuss the benefits of this interpretation in terms of critical thinking, ability to compare policy, breadth or depth of education, etc. Much like any other judge, there is a direct relationship between your speed and translation of theory arguments to my flow so you would be wise to slow down a bit. Finally, I still think that topicality is a voting issue, I lean towards constructive engagement meaning quid pro quo (I was at the topic meeting) and I still strongly dislike specification arguments. Much as Ross Smith thinks that theory is not a reason to vote against the negative, I do not think that specification or other procedural arguments are a reason to vote against the affirmative. Quite simply if the affirmative won't defend anything, I am likely to be persuaded that the affirmative solves anything. I also think that it is the negatives burden to demonstrate that their counterplan is competitive. Thus, it is the negative's burden to demonstrate that normal means = Congress if they want to run an Executive Order counterplan. I lean towards logically limited conditionality when discussing status of the counterplan, typically don't like performative contradictions and usually find independent voters to be undeveloped and therefore unpersuasive.

It seems very rare that a debate occurs anymore where there is not either a counterplan or some sort of critical alternative that attempts to solve the entirety of the case. I find this to be disappointing because often times, affirmatives have tremendous weaknesses or just seem like really bad ideas and therefore would not be difficult to win on the negative if the negative took a bit of time to do some specific research. I find this to be especially true this year, even with Afghanistan cases. The plethora of evidence for any United States policy in the middle east demonstrates that there is no reason for the negative to not clash with the affirmative by challenging some part of the case. Teams that engage in detailed case debates will receive higher speaker points than those teams that chose to adopt the generic agent counterplan, artificial net benefit approach. While I have probably made it clear that I find the latter to be boring I do vote for them all the time. And for what it’s worth, it doesn’t seem like a risky strategy given that affirmative teams rarely seem able to adequately debate the theoretical legitimacy of different counterplans. I tend to not find justifications for the legitimacy of consultation counterplans to be persuasive. Other than that, I don’t have a predisposition one way or the other towards criticisms and disadvantages and I feel like I adjudicate these debates well. Performance is entirely different type of argumentation that I am not familiar with nor do I have a lot of experience judging those types of debates so, you’ll probably want to think twice before putting me in the back of the room. Regardless of your strategy choices (critical or policy) remember that impact assessment is often underrated so spend time there in the debate.

Also, cross examination is very important. I flow cross examination. Arguments made during the cross examination can be cross applied during speeches. Inability to answer cross examination questions will give your opponents tremendous leeway in the debate. In general I thoroughly enjoy this part of the debate so take it seriously.

I have made several public claims that judges need to clearly articulate how speaker points are assigned in a debate. So, here goes. Ethos, logos and pathos are the three components to peruasiveness and therefore each factor into my assignment of speaker points. Ethos; you will receive high points if you are confident, prepared, clear in your articulation and generally nice to your opponents. Logos; you will receive high points if you have a great strategy, clash with your opponents on many different levels, have good line by line and know when you should be reading cards and when to be making analytic arguments. Pathos; less important than the first two (just the nature of our activity) but still important. You will receive high points if you are able to relate your arguments to me and this typically occurs with your ability to do a solid impact calculus and if you have passion for your arguments. These are the general guidelines for speaker points. Additionally, I tend to agree with Tim O'Donnell's assignment of speaker points. He notes that:

30 = The “best” debater that I expect to hear in a given year in a particular division (Similar to the A+ in my classes – rare, but not impossible. Such a speaker would make me say “WOW!”) 29.5 = The “best” debater that I expect to hear at a given tournament in a particular division – complete in all phases of the game. 29 = A very good debater who I expect to be among the top 10% in the field in a particular division (typically means high “insights per minute ratio” and crystal clear delivery which makes flowing them easy. 28.5 = A very good debater whose “insights per minute” put them in the top 25% of the field in a particular division at a particular tournament. 28 = A debater that I think has a shot of clearing at that particular tournament in that particular division (typically top 40% of a division). 27.5 = A technically sound debater with some strategic vision (likely to miss the cut on points) in that particular division. 27 = A technically sound debater, but one who lacks strategic vision relative to others in that particular division. 26.5 = A debater who needs work on the basics. 26 = A debater who is debating one (or more) divisions above where they ought to be.

Finally, be nice and respect not just your opponents but their arguments as well and feel free to ask questions anytime, at least before the debate starts ;-).

- Andrew