TH is Thor
11-16-09, 09:53 PM
Colin Patrick
Texas Tech University
Background:
4 years of parli debate @ Western Washington
1st year coaching at Texas Tech
Overview:
I believe that the round is ultimately the debater’s to control. I will default to Net-benefits unless otherwise told to do so. The best way for you to win my ballot is to compare impacts in the rebuttal. Also, I would like a copy of all plan, counter-plan, perm texts. I’ve had multiple rounds this year where teams have referred to the plan text when making arguments and running procedurals/plan flaws off of misspellings and abbreviations on the written out copy. I feel that this is necessary in these hyper-technical debates.
Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given.
Anywhere between 25-30, but usually around 26.5-28, unless something extremely offensive is said, or there is general meanness exhibited.
How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?
I’m open to all K’s run by either side. That being said you will have an easier time winning my ballot if you properly elucidate on how your alternative solves. Unless otherwise told so, I believe that the Neg can run conditional contradictory positions.
Performance based arguments…
Again, I am open to all arguments, just be clear.
Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?
In-round abuse is not necessary for me. The reason for voting on topicality should be made by the debaters.
Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?
The legitimacy of a CP should be debated out. Unless otherwise told so, I believe the CP is conditional. If you want to lock the Neg into something, then ask a POI. Perms are always a test of competition.
Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)
Don’t care.
In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?
The order of argument importance should be set up by the debaters.
How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?
I will default to Net-Benefits unless otherwise told to do so. If you want to win on a dehumanization impact, then argue why that is the most important. If you want to win on a nuclear war impact, then argue why that is the most important. If this is not done then I will probably have to intervene somewhere.
Texas Tech University
Background:
4 years of parli debate @ Western Washington
1st year coaching at Texas Tech
Overview:
I believe that the round is ultimately the debater’s to control. I will default to Net-benefits unless otherwise told to do so. The best way for you to win my ballot is to compare impacts in the rebuttal. Also, I would like a copy of all plan, counter-plan, perm texts. I’ve had multiple rounds this year where teams have referred to the plan text when making arguments and running procedurals/plan flaws off of misspellings and abbreviations on the written out copy. I feel that this is necessary in these hyper-technical debates.
Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given.
Anywhere between 25-30, but usually around 26.5-28, unless something extremely offensive is said, or there is general meanness exhibited.
How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?
I’m open to all K’s run by either side. That being said you will have an easier time winning my ballot if you properly elucidate on how your alternative solves. Unless otherwise told so, I believe that the Neg can run conditional contradictory positions.
Performance based arguments…
Again, I am open to all arguments, just be clear.
Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?
In-round abuse is not necessary for me. The reason for voting on topicality should be made by the debaters.
Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?
The legitimacy of a CP should be debated out. Unless otherwise told so, I believe the CP is conditional. If you want to lock the Neg into something, then ask a POI. Perms are always a test of competition.
Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)
Don’t care.
In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?
The order of argument importance should be set up by the debaters.
How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?
I will default to Net-Benefits unless otherwise told to do so. If you want to win on a dehumanization impact, then argue why that is the most important. If you want to win on a nuclear war impact, then argue why that is the most important. If this is not done then I will probably have to intervene somewhere.