Whisenhunt,+Toby

Toby Whisenhunt -- Highland Park, Dallas TX (updated - 9/08/2016)

Add me to the email chain please. whisent@hpisd.org
 * This is meant to provide insight to the default process I use to make decisions unless told otherwise by the debaters. I believe strongly in the marketplace of ideas. Everything is open to debate. It is your job to sell the args and evidence. I will read cards after rounds, but I will not read ALL the cards after a round. I do have a tendency to give spin extra weight when it is uncontested or the evidence is unchallenged. Please be specific and identify the arguments you are extending and answering. Leaving it up to me to sort out what answers what is a risky proposition. Lastly I see debate as a game, but to be clear games can have profound impacts on society. That also means it is just a game. You win some, you lose some.


 * -New for 2016 -**
 * -Performance / identity teams / K affs - Debate is a competition. It is a tournament. It is a contest. You signed up for it. As I mentioned above, I see it as a game. It is hard for me set aside my bias that debate is a good thing. I have dedicated my life to it and this community for upwards of a decade. I think even bad debate can have positive impacts on participants and society. If this was not true there would be no novice divisions. Additionally, I find it hard to be the arbitrator of all things race / sex / otherization. I come from a place of privilege and can not begin to imagine what it is like to be you, your family, or your team. I also find it hard to believe we will get to the bottom of it after 2 hours of debating. The very personal nature of these debates can result in heightened emotions on both sides during and after the debate. Race might be better discussed in a forum that does not place participants in direct opposition. I would never say that debate is the wrong forum, but I do think these discussions need to provide legitimate ground to both sides, be grounded in the resolution, and engage the other team. If you want to change debate from within, you still have to play the game. Jackie Robinson did not change the game of baseball by changing the rules of the game, but he changed it by excelling at the game. This analogy is not perfect, but it gives you some insight into my view.**


 * I think that debaters should answers questions clearly and directly when asked. Trolling is bullying. Bullying is the manifestation of a hierarchy which is fundamentally what most critical arguments are trying to expose.**

-I view debate as comparison of competing frameworks. This refers to how the debate is decided not just the concept of K vs. Policy. Why is something more important than something else? (time frame trumps magnitude ... why?) -I will attempt to minimize intervention in the evaluation of a) the selection of framework and b) the fulfillment of the framework's demands. Left unattended I think it is hard to VTL if you have no L. -I try to limit my decision to the arguments made in the debate.

Overviews If you can gratuitously use them, so can I. I don't know if this is a paperless issue or a gooey K issue, but I feel compelled to share the following: I will not apply the arguments you make to where they go without reasonable application. I will not reconstruct the debate afterwards. It is primarily your job to win the debate during the debate with your words. If you ask me to look at a card I often times will, but be specific and don't ask me to look at every card. Long story short, just because I listen to K debates does not mean abandon the line by line.

T - T debates and theory should be presented at a reduced rate of speed due to the blippy nature of some of the analysis. The same is true for any SPEC args. I will vote on T, but it has to be well articulated and consistent. Jargon is not always your friend. - SPEC args are rarely in and of themselves a voting issue for me. Rather I see them as necessary to establishing ground delineation. That is not to say I never vote on a SPEC arg, but it is rare.

Theory

•I believe the topic should provide fair and debatable ground. I often compare competing interpretations when deciding how the topic should be resolved. •I am generally more interested in substantive voting issues than theory arguments, but voting issues should be answered. Often these arguments serve their purpose by helping negotiate your ground in the debate, but do not necessarily justify a voting issue. In short, don't count on your dropped 1 line "it' a voter" extension to be a round winner in front of me. Boils down to the fact I have a soft spot for reject the arg not the team.

Defaults/Disads

•If the framework for evaluating the debate involves a disad, be aware that I usually determine the direction of uniqueness before the link. •If forced by lack of comparison to use my own framework I will consider time frame, probability, and magnitude of your impacts as part of cost benefit analysis of endorsing the affirmative advocacy. Defense is not a bad thing.

Counterplans/Counter-advocacy

•I have no strong predispositions related to counterplan types or theory. CPs without a net benefit or are banking on a solvency deficit can have a up hill battle. This is a bit of a rehash from theory, but it bears repeating. I am not as well versed in complex CP theory, or at least the jargon thrown around. Multiple conditional worlds, consult, agency, process, conditions CP theory is all up for debate. •Plan text should be thought out. That is not to say a poorly worded CP is an auto loss, but it does leave the negative open to some arguments I might find persuasive concerning perms, solvency, etc. if they opt to go that direction.

K -Performance / identity affirmatives - Debate is a competition. As I mentioned above, I see it as a game. It is hard for me set aside my bias that debate is a good thing. I think even bad debate can have positive impacts on participants and society. With all that being said, I find it hard to be the arbitrator of all things race / sex / otherization. I would never say that debate is the wrong forum for discussions of discrimination, but I do think these discussions need to provide legitimate ground to both sides. I think that debaters should answers questions clearly and directly when asked. Trolling is bullying. Bullying is the manifestation of a hierarchy which is fundamentally what most critical affirmatives are hoping to expose. As much as I have preconditions about debate being good, I also have predispositions about racism and hate being bad. -For me all arguments are questions of framework, i.e what should be evaluated first. AKA: Impact and decision calculus / comparisons. •-I'm a big fan of specific references to the aff when it comes to the link debate. Even a k of the res should be able to identify how the approach the aff took demonstrates the mindset in question. Don't forget that you still need an impact. Specific impacts that interact with the affirmative/negative is also a bonus.

I am probably easier to convince about alternative solvency than others. A simple "alt can't solve" without articulated warrants will not likely result in taking out solvency. This is the most vulnerable part of a critical argument, and I get the concept that nothing is going to change or collapse after the ballot is signed. But I think there is an argument to be made that these types of debate do have long lasting impacts on the people who debate on both sides of the issue, and thus something might indeed happen sometime after the round. I attempt to be a blank slate, but when issues are not discussed in the debate I thought you might like to know my gut feelings. I find that many teams get too caught up in one part of the K and end up shorting another.

•Creativity is often rewarding!

Do not just repeat terms expecting me to use my vast knowledge of them to construct your arg. Explain it to me. Concepts such as epistemology, ontology, methodology, ethics, and so forth need explanation and connection to the debate. This is especially true in the late rebuttals. By this time in the debate this should be contextualized and clear what bad thing the other team is doing, what advocacy you have to deal with it, and why that should come first. I might be asking for much, but debate is hard.

Performance teams. I feel you, but I still need it couched in a way that interacts or engages the topic in some way. At the end of the day you signed up for a tournament / competition and I have to choose a winner. Losing a round does not mean your message was not heard or appreciated.

Rebuttals/How to win

•Your last rebuttal is very important to my decision, but is not necessarily entirely disconnected from the rest of the debate. You should either win in your framework and show how it's preferable, or simply win in theirs. •I find that many debates I judge are heavily influenced by the quality and effectiveness of comparison. Both in evidence and the story told. •Impact calculus should begin in constructive or early rebuttals at the latest. 2R impact calc is better than none, but it loses some effectiveness with its late arrival.

Speaker Points

Note: When moved to a .1 scale I find myself in a quandary about my below speaker point scale. I have typically started in the high 27 and in the 28's more often. This approach is a work in progress.

<26 Doesn't play nicely with others 27 - Adequate 27.5 - 27.9 Average 28 - 28.5 Solid 28.6 - 29.9 Impressed me 30 - WOW or something happened