I don’t just give speaker points away…they are earned!
Debate is more than just tag and card to me. I expect debaters to spend time talking about the
implications of evidence and making analytical comparisons between arguments. I look forward to the
rhetorical visions created by the debaters concerning the possibilities of contingent truths being discussed
in the debate. So, assessing the relative probability is important when assessing impacts of arguments.
As well as, creating a persuasive story goes a long way of tipping the balance in your favor. Description
of arguments through analogy, examples, testimony, or hypothetical situations is very important and
much more persuasive than “extend Jefferson in 2003” style of debate. Debaters who take time to create
a vision for their argument will not only score really high points but they will most likely win…because it
will make sense to me.
I love cross-x. If your opponents are not answering questions…keep at them…their silence or vagueness
are reasons to vote against them. A good cross-x will go a long way towards winning a debate and
scoring really high points. I flow cross-x to ensure I catch any concessions or vagueness. Remember,
cross-x is about information gathering…if you are unwilling to provide information during cross-x it may
make you conditional…be warned…I don’t listen to conditional arguments! A poor cross-x will cost you
points.
I wish to hear clear and impactful speeches. You must spend time accentuating the evidence as you
read it and after you read it. An argument should be more than a number and 3 words. You must
articulate the warrant you are extending to the claims you are proffering for consideration. I would prefer
a less than rapid rate of speaking but will flow the best this old man can.
Argument Predispositions:
Pic the plan as much or as little as you want. They wrote it…they should defend it. But the net benefit
must have a threshold. The affirmative action must trigger an impact…so, when weighing risk you need
to assess the probability of harm and why that risk mandates a reaction. Be descriptive of the harm and
where it takes us after the debate.
Case v Kritik is interesting. Summing up my beliefs here is difficult. I believe the harm the affirmative
discusses is something they are saying we should act on to resolve. I believe the affirmative is calling for
us to work to protect the people/values/objects describe in the 1AC. The kritik must take this into account
when weighing its own impacts. Don’t just forget the affirmative’s world. Should we not make an effort to
demine because it falls into the humanist trap of problem-solution? What should I tell the person we are
trying to protect from the harm?
I don’t think policies get passed but I do believe the affirmative’s call for action establishes a world in
which the kritik must consider. The affirmative’s policy claim is liken to my belief in Christian works. It is
an action to serve others the affirmative is championing with value claims attached. The negative needs
to be aware of this and take the advantage of the affirmative into consideration.
ASPEC: is something I will listen to. Failure to specify an agent may make the affirmative conditional. If
an affirmative is willing to defend a specific agent in lieu of disadvantages or questions of implementation,
the counterplan doesn’t change the game. So, you should defend the agent from the get go. Doesn’t
need to be in plan but must be specified if asked. Also, a great deal of policy advocacy is centered
around a particular agent of implementation. Much of the literature read in a policy debate assumes a
specific agent of change. And since there are competitive ways policies can be implemented,
specification is important to ensure debateability and ground. O-spec…don’t even bother.
Conditionality (defined as multiple policy options or inconsistent advocacy-except if legitimated by
granting an opponent’s claim) should be avoided at all costs. The affirmative and negative each get one
and only one policy. That may sound draconian…but to ensure the best and most accurate assessment
of a debate focusing one two competing policies seems to be the best option.