AdamK
02-17-09, 03:02 AM
Cliff Notes
-I try to keep myself out of the debate as much as possible. The greater the depth of analysis and warrant comparison provided by you, the better I’m able to achieve that goal.
-Conversely, arguments with little depth and arguments that aren’t compared with your opponent’s make it difficult to achieve that goal. I’ll listen to any argument that you want to run, but I am comfortable gut-checking arguments if they don’t reach a minimal threshold of depth and sensibility.
-You should run the arguments that you feel the most comfortable running. I don’t think I have a preference for a certain type or style of argument over any other. I do, however, prefer arguments that are well-warranted and thorough, and you’ll be best able to do that by running the arguments you want to and like.
-The team that isolates the important issue(s) in the debate first and goes deepest on those questions generally wins the debate.
-Be funny and civil. Don’t be unfunny and uncivil.
-The rest of the philosophy will detail the way I tend to lean about certain issues in debate, but again, my opinion really shouldn’t matter. If you want to use this info to cater to what you believe to be my partiality, you’re welcome to, but that’s in no way expected or required and you should feel free to do whatever you want.
Specifics:
Topicality
-I default to a lens of competing interpretations, although I’m open to reasonability frameworks. Most reasonability frameworks are arbitrary, but if you can come up with one that isn’t or a warrant for why it’s arbitrary nature isn’t relevant, I’m game.
-Standards should have impacts. It is irrelevant that your interpretation is more real world absent a reason why a real world interpretation is beneficial.
-I’m open to creative interpretations of the resolution, but I think the best K affs still attempt to interact with the core resolutional question.
Advantages/Disads
-I tend to prioritize the link level of the debate above all others. The probability of any future event happening is almost never certain, and thus the uniqueness cannot completely control the direction of the link.
-I believe it is possible to have terminal defense against an adv/da. Offense is still your friend, but it’s theoretically possible to reduce the probability of a adv/da to zero.
-Fiat means that I assume that the plan has passed. All arguments on the link level that assume that there was enacting plan took some sort of special effort (horse trading, plan uses up too much political capital, etc.) are irrelevant, fiat moves through them. So, “Obama used up all his political capital passing plan and doesn’t have enough to pass X” doesn’t make sense, because he didn’t use any political capitol to pass it, it was fiated into being. But “Obama looks bad because of plan, popularity decreases, hurts his pol cap, means not enough to pass X” does make sense, because all these arguments take place after plan was fiated.
Counterplans
-I generally default to determining competition functionally. I’m sympathetic to the goals of textual competition, and tend to dislike the CPs that textual competition exists to exclude (consult, delay, etc.) but think that requiring textual competition in a more free-form type of debate like this iis an unreasonable burden on the negative. So, I’m not likely to be persuaded to reject a CP because it’s not textually competitive, but you’re more than welcome to read a separate theoretical objection to the CP that I’m likely to be inclined toward.
-I wouldn’t say that I have a default as to whether I lean towards rejecting the argument and rejecting the team on CP theory. If the aff wins an impact on the standards debate that isn’t solved solely be rejecting the argument, then I’m perfectly comfortable voting the neg down on CP theory. But if rejecting the arg solves back for all the offense on the standards debate, I see no reason to vote the neg down when solely rejecting the CP would suffice.
-I assume counterplans are conditional unless specified otherwise.
Ks
-I’m open to any and all of them, but am almost certainly not well versed in the literature.
-I’m sympathetic to arguments that Ks which exclude aff impacts are kinda bullshit. Your K should be able to outweigh or turn the aff, and the aff impacts probably function in your framework anyway.
-Framework should be a lens through which to view, evaluate, and weigh impacts. It should not be a voting issue.
Theory
-Standards should have impacts. The best theory debates include impact calculus and comparison between standards and counterstandards.
-CP theory generally doesn’t require a specific counter-interpretation.
-Again, you should be doing the work to tell me if I should be rejecting the argument or the team.
Any other questions, feel free to ask. Either find me at a tournament or email at adam dot thomas dot krell at gmail dot com
-I try to keep myself out of the debate as much as possible. The greater the depth of analysis and warrant comparison provided by you, the better I’m able to achieve that goal.
-Conversely, arguments with little depth and arguments that aren’t compared with your opponent’s make it difficult to achieve that goal. I’ll listen to any argument that you want to run, but I am comfortable gut-checking arguments if they don’t reach a minimal threshold of depth and sensibility.
-You should run the arguments that you feel the most comfortable running. I don’t think I have a preference for a certain type or style of argument over any other. I do, however, prefer arguments that are well-warranted and thorough, and you’ll be best able to do that by running the arguments you want to and like.
-The team that isolates the important issue(s) in the debate first and goes deepest on those questions generally wins the debate.
-Be funny and civil. Don’t be unfunny and uncivil.
-The rest of the philosophy will detail the way I tend to lean about certain issues in debate, but again, my opinion really shouldn’t matter. If you want to use this info to cater to what you believe to be my partiality, you’re welcome to, but that’s in no way expected or required and you should feel free to do whatever you want.
Specifics:
Topicality
-I default to a lens of competing interpretations, although I’m open to reasonability frameworks. Most reasonability frameworks are arbitrary, but if you can come up with one that isn’t or a warrant for why it’s arbitrary nature isn’t relevant, I’m game.
-Standards should have impacts. It is irrelevant that your interpretation is more real world absent a reason why a real world interpretation is beneficial.
-I’m open to creative interpretations of the resolution, but I think the best K affs still attempt to interact with the core resolutional question.
Advantages/Disads
-I tend to prioritize the link level of the debate above all others. The probability of any future event happening is almost never certain, and thus the uniqueness cannot completely control the direction of the link.
-I believe it is possible to have terminal defense against an adv/da. Offense is still your friend, but it’s theoretically possible to reduce the probability of a adv/da to zero.
-Fiat means that I assume that the plan has passed. All arguments on the link level that assume that there was enacting plan took some sort of special effort (horse trading, plan uses up too much political capital, etc.) are irrelevant, fiat moves through them. So, “Obama used up all his political capital passing plan and doesn’t have enough to pass X” doesn’t make sense, because he didn’t use any political capitol to pass it, it was fiated into being. But “Obama looks bad because of plan, popularity decreases, hurts his pol cap, means not enough to pass X” does make sense, because all these arguments take place after plan was fiated.
Counterplans
-I generally default to determining competition functionally. I’m sympathetic to the goals of textual competition, and tend to dislike the CPs that textual competition exists to exclude (consult, delay, etc.) but think that requiring textual competition in a more free-form type of debate like this iis an unreasonable burden on the negative. So, I’m not likely to be persuaded to reject a CP because it’s not textually competitive, but you’re more than welcome to read a separate theoretical objection to the CP that I’m likely to be inclined toward.
-I wouldn’t say that I have a default as to whether I lean towards rejecting the argument and rejecting the team on CP theory. If the aff wins an impact on the standards debate that isn’t solved solely be rejecting the argument, then I’m perfectly comfortable voting the neg down on CP theory. But if rejecting the arg solves back for all the offense on the standards debate, I see no reason to vote the neg down when solely rejecting the CP would suffice.
-I assume counterplans are conditional unless specified otherwise.
Ks
-I’m open to any and all of them, but am almost certainly not well versed in the literature.
-I’m sympathetic to arguments that Ks which exclude aff impacts are kinda bullshit. Your K should be able to outweigh or turn the aff, and the aff impacts probably function in your framework anyway.
-Framework should be a lens through which to view, evaluate, and weigh impacts. It should not be a voting issue.
Theory
-Standards should have impacts. The best theory debates include impact calculus and comparison between standards and counterstandards.
-CP theory generally doesn’t require a specific counter-interpretation.
-Again, you should be doing the work to tell me if I should be rejecting the argument or the team.
Any other questions, feel free to ask. Either find me at a tournament or email at adam dot thomas dot krell at gmail dot com