Harrigan,+Casey

Casey Harrigan
Director of Debate, MSU 10th year judging Previous affiliations: UGA, Wake Updated: July 2011

I still judge debates generally the same way as I did when I began, so your presumptions about me are probably true. Here are things that have changed/become more clear over time:

1. Clarity is very important to me. Starting at Wake, I will be much more vigilant about demanding that I be able to hear the text of the evidence that you read, as least to a degree where I would have a decent idea of what it said without calling for it. I will say “clear” and expect you to become clearer. My standard for what is not clear is much stricter than the average judge. If lack of communication (which is what it really is) persists, I will not call for your evidence after the round.

[SKIP THIS RANT IF PREPPING FOR A DEBATE: Quick, research-intensive debate is a beautiful thing that, when done well, is completely unmatched by other styles of debate. Those that poorly imitate and attempt to be fast without first being comprehensible, though, are not pretty. More than aesthetics, though, I worry about the sustainability of policy debate in a world of budget constraints and alternative forensic activities. Clearly, not every practice that “damages policy debate” will cause it to collapse and the Chicken Little doomsayers out there may be overblown, but still it can’t be healthy to encourage a style of debate that is an immediate turn-off to administrators, pro-debate outsiders, and novices, among others. I love fast policy debate and think it has huge benefits that can be effectively sold to the outside public -- but it has to be done well.]

2. Dropping terrible arguments once doesn’t end the debate. If the 2AC says “not intrinsic” and nothing else, it’s hardly a Neg burden to respond. Once the 1AR extends and develops the argument, the Neg gets another crack at it. If they drop it again, I will insta-vote Aff. Adopting this standard is my way of encouraging cheap-shot style arguments to be better developed earlier (intrinsicness isn’t a terrible argument after all, if explained well early) and to avoid deciding a ton of debates on a style of debating that I find to be pedagogically shallow.

3. Try-or-die is good but way overused. For it to apply, the following conditions must be true: extinction-level impact, no harm-related defense, no counterplan that attempts to solve the case. Use it if you’ve got it, but if you don’t, please don’t let “try or die” become a substitute for real engagement with their arguments.

4. Conditionality. It’s getting wicked on the Aff. 1 CP and 1 K is my “gut check” level of maximum desirable negative flexibility. Do more than this at your own risk or bank on the Aff not going for theory (which they probably won’t because few seem to these days).

5. I don’t hate the K – but don’t love it either. I think I’m better than 50/50 for voting for it when it’s in the 2NR. Could be a sample thing where people only go for it in front of me when they’re ahead. I hardly ever judge Aff’s that don’t meet the standard framework and I’m pretty happy about that. Reps Ks are academically interesting but usually don’t make much sense in the context of debate (http://www.georgiadebate.org/2009/11/judge-choice-the-illogic-of-representational-critique). Best Aff strategy vs. the K = alt fails. Best Neg K strategy = tech / the tricks.

6. When debated equally, counterplan competition based on the process of enacting the Aff is not persuasive. If the Neg CPs to have a different agent (ex: executive order) do something different than the Aff (ex: parole), and competes solely based on the agent angle (ex: politics), it seems totally reasonable (and not intrinsic, because the Neg introduced the agent) to allow the Aff to permute to do their plan using that agent. That said, I think I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve voted Aff on “do the CP” or something similar in the past several years – mostly due to execution.

Old philosophy below ---

-- Cliff-notes version:

1. Mostly a policy guy.

I do most of my research on topic-specific traditional policy arguments. It’s what I’m most familiar with; and, frankly, what I most prefer to read.

Some of you may have notice that I have a “little K thing”. Yep. Its not my preference, but I’ll certainly listen to your arguments (on the Aff or Neg). More on this later.

2. Hard work matters.

I work hard, I expect my team to work hard and be engaged, and I expect that of those that I judge. If you’re from a school with fewer financial/human resources, I get it – but I also get it when people use this or a variety of other excuses to mail it in.

In addition to the obvious direct benefits of being prepared, I will be making a conscious effort to reward hard working teams with higher speaker points.

3. “Critiques”

I hate this word. It means nothing. To me, there’s a clear line that intersects the categories: there are arguments that meet the framework, and there are arguments that don’t.

Arguments that meet the framework (Does it disprove the necessity for topical action? Is the advantage based on the outcome of the plan?) make sense. Nietzsche meets the framework. Nietzsche me.

Arguments that don’t meet the framework don’t make sense. This is totally unrelated to the question of whether they are fair, or “educational” (read: interesting to talk about). Simply, purely representational critiques do not present any reason to reject the plan. The Neg can be 100% correct – and, at most, it proves that a particular representation/justification should not be used as a reason to enact the plan.

4. Theory

For a little while, I’ve felt like I have been one of the most Neg-leaning judges in the pool. Conditionality has been a virtual non-option for the Aff in front of me. To “reject the team” for reading a PIC or international fiat has been unthinkable.

However, things are getting out of hand. I think others are noticing it too. The Neg is getting away with way too much. 2 counterplans is OK if it is a new Aff. If it isn’t, it seems excessive.

The problem isn’t so much that it’s unfair” – it’s that the depth of discussion in such “run-and-gun” debates is far too shallow. This defeats the purpose of hard work – a d-rule for me.

I’m not sure what the remedy is. I’ll probably try to reign in how much latitude that I’m willing to regularly afford to the Neg – and probably use the normal flow of speaker points to Neg teams that at least attempt a serious discussion of the Affirmative.

5. Truth Matters – At Least a Little

When I first started judging, I thought that I was a “tech-only” kind of guy. I found out that I’m not. Some things are just so overwhelming false that they can be defeated by even relatively poor arguments by the other team.

One instance: counterplans that clearly link to their net-benefit.

The Neg team will say “But there is a risk of a link”.

They usually do not:

a) Introduce a standard for evaluating the link that supercedes the logical “some amount is sufficient” understanding of DAs

or

b) Explain an impact that assumes only a risk of a link

I’m “offense/defense” – because it obviously makes sense – but sometimes Neg teams do such a poor job at winning “a risk” of their DA that the offense they win is overwhelmed by presumption. Or a “risk” of a solvency deficit, no matter how vanishing.

6. Last Note: Pre-Emptive “I Told You So”

Everyone has judging idiosyncrasies. You should know mine. I’ll try to keep this updated as they arise, or as I think of them.

a) Try-or-die. This happens a lot – particularly in K debates.

Imagine if:

-- The Aff wins that the alt fails 99% of the time – but concedes that the impact to the K certainly makes extinction inevitable and the Neg wins a sliver of a link

or

-- The Aff has an extinction inevitable Zizek advantage – and the Neg is cranking them on a DA and solvency – but doesn’t have harm defense.

In both above situations, one team is exceptionally vulnerable to a “try-or-die” approach. I’m amenable to it. If you’re not, be prepared and either don’t get yourself into that situation, or pre-empt it with another impact calculus.

b) Tricks

I’m sort of a debate nerd. I wrote my MA thesis on debate. I work on it all the time. I am weirdly interested in old debate theory and arguments.

Sometimes, teams win just because they are “in the know” – and the other team isn’t.

For example: “vote No” on politics. The Decision-maker. The “Realism Trick”. Stuff from the past – that isn’t particularly good – but for some psychological reason or another, gets additional cred because it draws upon debate memories.

There isn’t an easy remedy to this, other than: be aware of your past, know something about debate theory, and ask questions. Hey, you might even learn a thing or two along the way.