Abelkop,+Adam

Adam Abelkop - Judge Philosophy

A short background since I haven’t judged HS debate in a few years: I debated from 1999-2003 for Chattahoochee HS; from 2003-07 for Wake Forest; I coached policy debate while I was in law school for 3 years from 2007-10 at the University of Iowa; and I now coach policy debate and am studying for a PhD in public policy at Indiana University.

1. Intervention and biases--Debate is for the debaters, and I will listen to any style of argument. I will adhere pretty strictly to what the debaters say; however, I do think there are standards. I don’t think any team should lose, for example, because they concede “conditionality good is a voting issue.” Ultimately, though, it is the burden of the debaters to avoid putting me in a position in which I have to vote on arguments that can’t stand up to scrutiny.

2. Debate is supposed to be fun--I think it’s important for the debaters not to be rude or mean to one another. Have fun. Use sarcasm. Make jokes.

3. Topicality—As a __default__ (e.g. assuming the neg doesn’t explain why competing interpretations should be the evaluation paradigm), I evaluate topicality through a reasonableness standard: if the aff interpretation provides a fair and predictable limit, then the aff is probably topical even if the neg can conjure some more limiting interpretation. I think that for the neg to win, they should explain what “competing interpretations” means, provide a case list of what each team’s interpretation would allow, and clearly explain the effects on limits, ground, etc.

4. Credible internal link arguments are a must--This is probably best explained with an example: “x causes US econ collapse” followed immediately by Mead 92 doesn’t work well because it misses an internal link that US econ is key to world econ. I won’t, of course, discount the disad because the internal link wasn’t made, but rather I would give added weight to the aff that points out these gaps in reasoning. And, I don’t think all the internal links have to be in the 1NC, so long as they show up at some point in the debate. I evaluate all arguments this way--whether the argument is labeled "disadvantage" or "critique." There needs to be a link (to the plan, representations, etc.) and a well-explained internal link to an impact.

5. Framework--My default is that the aff should have a plan, defended a topical example of the resolution. That is not to say, however, that I’m closed to those who argue to the contrary. I also presumptively think that in critique debates that the aff should get to weigh its advantages against the impact to the critique.

6. Theory (and CPs)--I think there’s merit to making developed theory arguments. I would give leeway to the neg in situations in which a string of 5 words in the 2ac turns into 2 minutes of the 1AR. Arguments must be comprehensible, and I’ll give as much weight to arguments that the debaters do. If you spend time making a well developed argument against international fiat, I’ll treat it seriously. My defaults include: conditionality is fine, multiple counterplans (within reason) are okay, artificially competitive cps are probably illegitimate, but all that depends on how the arguments are explained and delivered. My last preference here is that for all CP theory, the most logical impact is that I should just reject the CP. The only exception is conditionality bad, in which case rejecting the CP would make it functionally conditional.

7. Critiques--If you go for them often, then you probably know more of the rhetoric than I do, so the burden is on you to explain your argument with more care than you otherwise would. Consider me a lay person. I am not a communication scholar and am not well read in areas of high theory. I will evaluate critique debates with as much care and precision that I can. The most useful advice is to see #4 above.

8. A comment on the use of evidence--I may be in the minority on this, but I do not think that logical warranted arguments necessarily require evidence. The reason I may be in the minority on this is due to the degree to which I believe this: For example, I will entertain the argument that global economic contraction increases the probability of interstate warfare so long as it is supported by warrants (empirical examples, explanations of why it might be true in a particular context, etc). I don't think that the debater's arguments have to literally be made in the cards they read: I think evidence should be used to SUPPORT arguments, not MAKE arguments for the debaters. I don't think "they don't have a card" is a good argument if the un-carded argument is logical and/or warranted. However, many arguments are of course better if supported by established experts. And, no doubt, there are situations in which evidence from an expert in a certain field is probably necessary--e.g. assertions by undergrad debaters are just not enough. This is ultimately a highly contextual issue that depends on the necessity of author qualifications. For "they don't have a card" to be a meaningful argument, there also has to be an argument as to why the input of an established expert is necessary and/or a refutation of the un-carded warrants. This also means I won’t read all of the cards after the debate and evaluate arguments made in the cards that weren’t in the debate. “Extend X evidence” is not an argument.