Calderwood,Kevin


 * Kevin Calderwood**
 * Southern Illinois University**


 * Quick Notes:**

-Prefer policy arguments to critical arguments. -I tend to err neg on counterplan theory if you have a specific solvency advocate. -Speed is fine, but clarity is of utmost importance. I do not judge policy debate often, but I have never had trouble with speed in the past. -Please, slow down for plan/cp/alt text, T/theory interpretations, and tag lines! -I have not done topic research, so be careful with acronyms. I like T debates (although I would not say I am a T hack), and tend to reject reasonability as a lens to view T debates.


 * Background:** I have been involved in competitive debate in some form for the last 11 years. I would characterize myself as having a general preference for policy arguments over critical ones, but I am very open to vote in a world outside of those preferences. I think the round is yours, and my job is only to evaluate the arguments you present in the fairest way possible. As an undergraduate I studied political science with an emphasis on international relations, but as a graduate student I study rhetorical criticism, meaning I read more and more works of critical theory as time passes.

There are only two arguments I will never vote on (and I would say 99% of all judges wouldn’t either, at least in high school debate). I will not vote on unjustifiable impact turns like rape good, slavery good, or racism good. I have very personal issues with these types of arguments (as should you) and you should not run them in front of me. Second, I think debaters should keep their clothes on. If you need to speak out because the body has been "sexualized" by the patriarchy, do it in another forum and not in a debate I am judging. Outside of those two specific arguments, you should not have any problems with argumentative choice.


 * A few thoughts on the direction of policy debate:**


 * A)** **Paperless**- I understand the paperless turn, and fully embrace the positive benefits it offers. However, just because the other team is following your speech on the reader computer does not mean that you should completely ignore the judge. I do not have a reader computer in front of me. I will rewards debaters who clearly articulate the words in their evidence. The problem is not speed, but clarity. Additionally, I disliked people stealing prep time before paperless, and this sentiment has not changed. Jump your files quickly. Paperless is supposed to reduce the average time per round, not increase it.


 * Three quick rules for paperless:**
 * 1)** Prep time ends when you remove the flash drive from the computer.
 * 2)** Have a flash drive that works.
 * 3)** You must have a minimum of three computers.


 * B)** As the acceptable standards for evidence quality decreases, my acceptance of analytic arguments increases as well. Never be afraid to make a smart argument, even if you do not have evidence on the specific question.


 * C)** Defense is the most under utilized tool in debate. Although I believe in terminal defense, simply reducing the risk of a team's links or impacts can be important.

//**As for more specific arguments**//:


 * 1. Procedurals-** To win topicality you do not have to prove in-round abuse, but it certainly helps your story. I am open to any interpretation of how I should evaluate procedural arguments, although I find myself generally rejecting the notion of reasonability. I am definitely not a T hack, but am more likely to vote on it then most judges these days. I think that specification arguments are a waste of my time.


 * 2. Theory-** Generally, I err negative on counterplan theory, or at the very least, I prefer to reject the argument not the team. My litmus test for the theoretical legitimacy of a counterplan is whether the negative has a solvency advocate. With that said, the affirmative can certainly convince me that certain counterplans are bad. For example, the legitimacy of counterplans that are not both functionally and textually competitive, or those that change the immediacy of fiat, are up in the air in my book. Conditional arguments are fine, but the more conditional arguments you add, the more sympathetic I am to the affirmative. Reading a couple of disads, a critique, a counterplan, and impact turns to the case, give the block enough strategic choices.

Consult- With a very specific solvency advocate I am okay with consult. I am sympathetic to offense about how it changes the nature of fiat and defense about how they still get their relations disad. Delay- Err aff. Do not read delay in front of me. Process- Err aff. Process counterplans are like con-con and veto cheato. Actor/Agent CPs are fine. Floating PICs- Err aff. Word PICs- Err neg if the word is in the plan. Multi-Plank Counterplans- I do not like multi-plank counterplans. I do not think you get to "kick" a plank of a counterplan and keep the rest. That is the definition of severance to me.
 * Specific Counterplans**


 * 3. Offense/Defense-** Although I find defense important, the only way to win a truly offensive impact is to control the uniqueness debate. In most instances, I find that the uniqueness controls the direction of the link (meaning offense can only go one way), but that does not mean you cannot nullify the disad with good link evidence (even if you lose the uniqueness debate). Link uniqueness is very important to me, especially on politics disads.


 * 4. Critical Arguments/Performance-** These are not my favorite arguments, but I have found myself voting for them a lot recently. Typically, I do not enjoy clash of civilization debates, and find myself erring on the side of preserving policy education. Framework is just a lens for the judge to evaluate the debate at the end of the round. If you win framework, you do not necessarily win the round. For example, if the affirmative justifies their representations, but you win that representations are good, I will still vote affirmative. Permutations are really effective against more critical alternatives than people generally think, and I find the exception of the plan will not collapse the solvency for the alternative. Do not be afraid to impact turn criticisms in front of me. On a personal level, I tend to think that its better to work within the system to create moderate change than to completely overthrow the system. Although I do not have a predisposition towards these arguments in debate, I find that capitalism is typically the best and most fair economic system, and that the forward deployment of American troops and the robust nature of American internationalism generally make the world a better place.