Wiesner,+Kevin

Kevin Wiesner Affiliation: Dexter

My default framework to view a debate round is as a policy maker (i.e. I'll weigh the affirmative against the negative policy option). I will listen to alternate frameworks, but you have to 1) propose an alternate framework in the round, and 2) win that your framework is the best way for me to attempt to evaluate the round. Winning "resolution bad" is not sufficient for me to change to an alternate framework. I fundamentally disagree with the argument that policy debate is bad; otherwise, I would not be judging this round. If I don't understand what you are asking me to do, then you will lose your framework. Fairness is my number one concern when deciding on which framework is best. The litmus test is: do both sides have a reasonable/winnable argument they can make. Forcing a side to have to debate racism good, the sky is not blue, or ohio is not a four-letter word is __not__ a fair debate. Remember the whole idea of debate is it is supposed to be fun; it's a game.
 * Framework**

Clash is probably more important to T and theory than any other part of the debate. Logically speaking, using an interpretation in a theory debate is disadvantageous. It only creates the possibility that your interpretation excludes ground that you did not need to exclude to win your theory argument. It is a perfectly complete argument to have 1) the aff (or neg) did __, 2) here's why that's bad, 3) here's why the judge should vote there. That's not to say I won't vote on competing interpretations if either side wins competing interpretations is the best format to evaluate theory. It's difficult for me to say whether my threshold is high or low, as I have no idea what the average level of threshold is; I tend to believe it's lower than this intangible average, for what it's worth. Instead, I'd rather say that my threshold for theory is higher than my threshold for the policy level arguments (CP, DA, case). The way I view theory is that a team is asking me to vote against the other team because the other team violated some rule of fair debate. In order for me to be comfortable voting that the other team cheated, quite a bit of work needs to be done. In a way, I think this is asking for more judge intervention than in other parts of the debate because essentially theory is an appeal to my idea of fairness. That causes me to scrutinize theory debates beyond just the technical aspects. Still, that doesn't mean you //can't// win theory on the technical part of the debate alone. Dropped arguments are dropped arguments, even if it's on the theory flow.
 * T/ theory**

Impact calculus is crucial here. I like the strategy of exploding the impact to the disad in the block so that it turns case and has an external impact. I enjoy politics debates a lot.
 * Disads**

I'm willing to vote on a K that the debaters can adequately explain. I am not super familiar with a broad range of literature, as I tended to focus on specific ideas, philosophies, ideologies. Assume I know nothing about your K. I will listen and try to understand your argument, but the burden is on you to get me to understand it. I prefer classical and modern thought to postmodernism. I find performative contradiction arguments very compelling, so if you decide to run a K I would suggest having a consistent advocacy across flows. I honestly think that projects suffer from a serious flaw- it is not an offensive reason to reject the other team (and is therefore, susceptible to a perm or counterplan/advocacy). If the project does not even defend a plan, then I see no reason why a negative could not simply stand up and say, "we advocate that too; vote neg on presumption." Honestly, the idea that I should vote a particular way because of the race, sex, whatever of the debaters is offensive.
 * K**

I'll vote on all types of Counterplans so long as the negative can defend the theoretical legitimacy of them from affirmative theory arguments.
 * CPs**

(These comments do not mean that I will necessarily vote this way; simply, in the interest of full-disclosure it might be easier than not to win the following. I try to be as objective as possible.)
 * Random thoughts in no particular order**
 * Conditionality is probably abusive- If the aff. tried to kick plan in the 2AR and go for something else, I would zealously defend the 2NR. I think it's probably a good thing the 2ACs get the same protection.
 * Consult counterplans probably aren't competitive. Adding the language about binding consultation doesn't make it competitive if the neg wins the 'say yes' debate. Normally, we consult with lots of people before we make major policy decisions. That means the consultation is probably normal means.
 * Just because a negative says a perm is just a test of competition doesn't make it so. I think the aff is only cheating themselves if they do not extend the perm as an advocacy just because the negative says "test of competition." If the perm solves stuff better than the plan, it might be strategic to advocate the perm. Cross-apply best policy option from the condo flow; advocating perms good, right?
 * If an aff doesn't defend the plan, then they shouldn't get perm ground. I haven't fully developed my thought process on this, but I don't see how there can be fair neg ground if the aff doesn't defend the plan //and// gets perm ground.
 * Capitalism is good. I studied economics at Michigan, and am well versed in economic theory. The argument that Capitalism is good is true by definition. Ever see someone frown on a jet ski? Didn't think so- producing more stuff is better than less stuff. Additionally, capitalism makes it far more costly for people to engage in things like racism, sexism, and environmental degradation. (FYI: I continue to believe cap bad is a very effective K in the debate world.)
 * Heg is probably good. American Heg may not be perfect, but the argument that the alternative is apolarity makes a lot of sense. Obviously, that also means I think apolarity is likely bad- nations fighting for power and all that.
 * There is no reason for new case debate in the 2NC. By new case debate, I mean brand new arguments and not extensions of 1NC argument with new impact scenarios, warrants, and the like. It really is annoying, and I let the 1AR get away with all kinds of abusive stuff because of it.
 * Performative contradictions are bad. Either both teams should be able to sever their discourse or neither team should. I tend to lean severance bad, by the way.
 * There is no side-bias. I haven't added it up, but I'm confident my voting distribution is really close to 50-50. If I did a chi-squared analysis, then the null hypothesis will certainly prove true with an extremely small p-value.