Patterson,+Chase

Chase Patterson – Damien High School – Three Years Judging

I believe debate is a game. As such, you are more than welcome to read whatever arguments you enjoy or believe will give you a competitive advantage. However, for the sake of background, when I debated I was rather “policy” oriented. This fact has not changed since I crossed the threshold into coaching. As I mentioned earlier, this should not deter you from reading whatever you want. I will always try to be as fair and impartial as possible, but I do have some natural tendencies.


 * On topicality**, I will usually err AFF on topicality and NEG on theory. I think research is good and if an Affirmative team discovers a unique way to interact with the topic, then I’m not sure why they should be punished. I will and do vote for topicality and even limits arguments, but the impact needs to be more nuanced than “they make the topic too big.” You need to give me reasons why this specific topic needs to be smaller or limited, otherwise I’m usually unwilling to vote on a vague argument that essentially breaks down as: this AFF wasn’t put out at camp, I’m too lazy to do the research, so I shouldn’t have to be prepared to debate this, vote NEG!

If you want me to vote on a limits-topicality argument you should probably have contextual evidence that explains why expanding the definition of, say, alternative energy to include X is bad for education/science/debate/etc. and why your interpretation solves this impact. Merely reading a list that does not include one type of energy or incentive is, in all probability, not good enough.

The last thing I will add on topicality is this. I think Affirmative teams have a responsibility under my framework. I will usually give you some leeway to explore new niches within the topic, but that does not mean you should find the craziest Affirmative possible, with no solvency advocate and little-to-no evidence connecting you to the topic, just so you can “break a new AFF” that the NEG could never be prepared to debate. Should a situation like this arise, I am more than ready to vote on “They do not have a solvency advocate…a more than cursory search into the literature could never have prepared us for/allowed us to predict this Affirmative.” Oh, and I will never vote on C/I: Only our AFF is topical. The NEG need not answer it.


 * As for theory**: First, I want to warn all interested parties that I can keep up with the fastest of you, but it is nearly impossible to decide a theory debate when both teams are simply reading their blocks as fast as they can. The reason being twofold, a) I’m not a stenographer, so odds are I will miss the 3rd sub-point on the 4th argument on the conditionality flow b) most of the time, the debaters spreading through a theory block do not know what they are talking about. And if you can’t explain why side-bias outweighs strategic thinking using more than 5 blippy words then I don’t know why your argument is good enough to deserve a ballot. This is a big deal in the final speeches. If it doesn’t take you 5 minutes to go for a theory argument then it probably isn’t good enough to win on and you are just burning valuable time that could be spent on a substantive argument.

The other abstract information about theory I feel compelled to provide is that I really do not like voting on cheap-shots. If a team drops a bad theory argument and you decide to go for it, than you better damn well “go for it”. Spending 15 seconds saying, “they dropped this, vote X” is not enough. Put in the effort to explain the impact and why the argument is good enough to vote on regardless of the opposing team’s lack of an answer. If you don’t want to “waste time” putting in said effort, then the argument almost certainly isn’t good enough to deserve my ballot.

On to the specifics. If I was forced to pick a side, I would consider myself a functional-competition guy. Does this mean I won’t vote on textual competition good? No. But I am more persuaded, than perhaps most judges, by arguments with evidentiary support that explains the difference between the two texts, regardless of how the words can be manipulated. I’m not sure it is ok for a team reading RPS to not defend a disad based on one of the alt energies covered under RPS, nor am I sure AFFs should be able to claim a CP that only affects 3 of the 4 types of energies or incentives the their authors defend, is the same thing as the Affirmative.

Word to the wise, Counterplans that might not be textually competitive better have evidence explaining the difference between the plan and the counterplan and why doing both is not possible. As a result I’m much more sympathetic to the AFF’s arguments when debating a Consult-type counterplan. Essentially what I’m saying is most PICs/Advantage CPs are “good”, most Actor/Consult/Condition CPs can only be “good” if they have specific evidence on the competition question.

As for conditionality: I don’t think the NEG has to have offense to win this debate. The burden is on the Affirmative claiming abuse. I can go into detail why, but this philosophy is already becoming long-winded. If anyone is interested, just come up to me at the tournament or before the round, and I will be more than happy to engage you on this question.

Multiple-conditional Counterplans are a whole ‘nuther monster. Like pornography, I can’t tell you where the threshold is, but I know it when I see it. So if you are planning on having more than two or three conditional counterplans you better be prepared to impress me on the theory flow. There are a lot of other theory questions I could delve into, so I will reference the conclusion of the preceding paragraph.


 * As for the “Kritik”**: I would be lying if I claimed to enjoy these debates as much as I enjoy a Big Stick AFF vs. Interesting PIC debate. I have spent a fair amount of time reading all the common authors’ works, but I am by no means an expert. So don’t assume I always know what you are talking about. I think there are plenty of good arguments to be had on both sides, and my voting record is probably 50/50 in these types of rounds. So, if you want to read a K, don’t let my presence in the back stop you. Almost always, the team that wins is the team that does a better job/puts more time into explaining why their impact comes first.

Side note: This maybe nonsensical to some but I really don’t care about the framework debate. Most Kritik alternatives will never actually happen, and none of them will occur because of the way I voted in a high school debate round (it’s flattering, but I assure you my decision is really not //that// important). Same thing goes for the Affirmative advantages. Personally I think the idea of fiat implicitly accepts that this is true. The only question then becomes whether I should imagine a world where the plan is possible/good or imagine a world where the alt is possible/good (Transition to the Alt, leads to extinction and Kritism turns the case arguments are both very pursusavie and viable arguments under this framework). And if it isn’t clear yet, I am more persuaded by the cards and impact claims than the theory arguments. Obviously this line of thought evaporates when the kritik is of debate not the plan, and in that instance I’m still more persuaded by the cards than theory.


 * As for Performance/Critical Pedagogy/Narrative type debates:** To be honest, I am probably not the adjudicator you want in the back. I always try to be open minded when I’m judging, so seeing my name on the pairings does not spell instant doom. But it does mean you are going to have to put more time than you usually would into explaining your arguments.


 * As far as Counterplans and Disadvantages go**, I love them. The only thing I can add is that I generally compare the solvency-deficit first, and then decide risk-threshold on the net-benefit. As a result, the AFFs would be best served by reading add-ons and the NEGs can help their cause by going for //at least// one or two solid case arguments. And both sides NEED to do a lot of impact comparison. Anyone can find an internal-link to nuke war, the team that wins is the one that explains, in detail, why their internal-link is triggered first, or solves the other impacts, etc…

And, putting a number of variables aside, I have no problem deciding that there is ZERO RISK to a disadvantage. For instance, shifting from Coal Power production to Solar/Nuclear/Wind etc... will probably not trigger a generic oil disad link unless some sort of electric cars, or specific industry/perception link evidence is read.


 * As for the random stuff:** I’m ok with speed as long as you are clear. Tag team cross-examination is fine. No, I do not have a timer and do not feel like giving you time signals. Yes, you can sit down during your speech. And, if you don’t do the impact calculus, I will. This may or may not be a good thing for you.