Shuman,+Terrance

Terrance Shuman
I have tried to be as thorough as possible in what follows. I don't doubt that some will find it insufficiently detailed. When in doubt, ask....


 * TOPICALITY**

I assign presumption to the Affirmative on this issue. Negatives who desire to win my ballot here must argue persuasively that their competitive opportunities are seriously damaged by Affirmative's interpretation. Inasmuch as my decision is not binding upon others, I do not find arguments about "out-of-round implications" (including "potential abuse") compelling. Nit-picky, "time-suck" topicality challenges damage the credibility of Negatives who run them.


 * THEORY GOO**

Part of what makes policy debate fun is the meta-debate about theoretical issues. Debaters should be aware that I do not consider any such issues to be definitively settled. If you have a good argument, make it.


 * EVIDENCE**

Credible evidence in support of factual claims is generally regarded as dispositive absent any countervailing evidence. Evidence in support of predictive claims is not. Carded arguments regarding predictive claims will not automatically prevail in the face of rigorous-but-uncarded analysis. Arguments regarding source credibility and the ultimate cogency of predictive claims are stronger if carded, but I do not worship cards at the expense of sound analysis. I do not read evidence after rounds (unless a formal claim of falsification/misrepresentation is made); if you want cards to weigh in my decision, make sure they are presented clearly. Overclaiming evidence damages the credibility of debaters who engage in the practice.


 * DELIVERY**

I find clarity effective regardless of the speaker's WPM rate. I find muddled arguments ineffective regardless of the speaker's WPM rate. If you intend to speak in catch-phrases and shorthand, you will likely be disappointed: I do not intend to "fill in the blanks" for either side in the round.


 * THE CASE DEBATE**

I do not believe that case issues are "dead" in policy debate. Negatives making cogent arguments on significance and inherency will find a sympathetic ear. However, I do not require cataclysmic harms in order to find resolutional action warranted. "Small, true" cases will also be given a fair hearing.


 * THE PLAN DEBATE**

I believe that Negatives too often let Affirmative get away with murder on solvency/workability issues. I do not require cataclysmic impacts to find disadvantage arguments persuasive. Affirmatives should rigorously challenge the relevance and cogency of generic disadvantages. Counterplans are a legitimate Negative strategy; as you might have surmised, though, I am rather "old school" on them. Negatives relying on the "net benefits" standard alone to establish competition have their work cut out for them. I also believe that counterplans are by nature conditional; Affirmatives wishing to argue that conditional arguments are illegitimate have their work cut out for them, as do Negatives who wish to argue that their counterplan is an actual policy option for me when it is time to cast the ballot.


 * KRITIKS/CRITICAL AFFIRMATIVES**

I really wish you wouldn't, but if you must....be prepared to defend your position analytically (i.e., without relying on a blizzard of dense verbiage from your favorite author). Claims that critical issues "must outweigh everything else in the round" (even if carded) will be defeated by reasonable analytical counter-claims to the contrary. In other words, critical advocacy from either team has a steep hill to climb in front of me. If it is the only club in your bag...


 * DECORUM**

Incivility of any sort will be ruthlessly punished. Nuking your speaks is only the beginning of my response to such behavior. Play nice, or be prepared to deal with the consequences.

Will not vote on Spark.