Kevin Calderwood Judge Philosophy [Archive]

KCalderwood

09-29-11, 11:49 PM

I have an updated philosophy. I don't think anything major has changed, but the quick notes section should help you decide how to pref me.

Kevin Calderwood
Southern Illinois University

Quick Notes
---I prefer policy arguments.
---You should take take at least one question in every constructive.
---All advocacies in the debate should be unconditional.
---All texts should be written down for the other team and repeated at least once.
---Framework should never be a voting issue; it's a lens to view the rest of the debate.
---Topicality should always be a voting issue, and is never genocide. Spec arguments are a waste of time. Permutations are tests of competition.
---I will err affirmative on most questions of counterplan theory (delay, consult, conditions, normal means, textual competition, process ((veto cheato, con-con)), etc.). Ask, and I am sure I can clarify this for you.
---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.
---I use should a lot in my paradigm. This is a list of my preconceived notions, intended to help guide you in winning my ballot. All of these considerations are how I think debate ought be, not what it is, so, they are obviously up for discussion.

Background:
I have participated in competitive debate for the last eleven years. I have judged hundreds of debates in almost every format. However, my approach to judging parliamentary debates is quite different, based mainly on structural differences.
As an undergraduate I studied international relations, and would classify myself as a hegemonist. I study rhetoric, with a focus on environmental communication. I have written most of my term papers dealing with the environmental justice movement, climate change rhetoric, democratic social movements, and Monsanto’s crisis communication strategies
I will default to judging the round as a policymaker, and I generally prefer these debates to critical ones. However, the best debates happen when debaters argue what they are best at. If this means you are awesome at performance, then you are more likely to win than if you stumble through a CP/DA debate.
Working hard is the easiest way to win in front of me. This means working hard in your preparation before the tournament and during the debate. I expect you to be well read in the arguments you are running. Lazy debaters are more often than not those that intentionally obfuscate the debate to confuse their opponents. I reward hard work, and it’s really not difficult to identify those that work hard.

Offense/defense: Defense is the most underutilized tool in debate. However, I still believe that the uniqueness controls the direction of offense in nearly every instance. This does not mean that you cannot nullify the disadvantage or reduce its risk with effective defense, but I do not believe that you will win an offensive impact if you are behind on the uniqueness debate. There are two scenarios where I think you can win an offensive impact if you are behind on the uniqueness debate: (1) The impact to the disadvantage is systemic. Poverty exists in the United States. If you win that the plan increases the economy and decreases poverty, then this is a tangible, offensive impact. (2) If you add a systemic impact as a part of your link turns. If you lose the uniqueness debate on helping the economy where the impact is nuclear war, you will not win offense. However, if you contextualize your link turn with an argument that any increase in the economy helps reduce poverty, then you can theoretically make the link turn an offensive argument. Argument comparison is necessary in all debates, but I cannot stress how important they are in nuanced debates like I just described.

Framework: I find these debates boring and overly dogmatic. Framework is a lens to view the rest of the debate; a filter for the judge to determine which impacts should come first and what their role is as a critic. Framework, by itself, is never a voting issue. It consists of three parts: (1) an interpretation of what your framework is; (2) what the role of the judge is (i.e. policy maker, intellectual, etc.), and (3) competing modes of impact calculus (i.e. utilitarianism, methodology, ontology, etc). Debates are not won or lost on framework. If you lose the framework debate, but win that the plan breaks down capitalism (link turn), or that capitalism is good (impact turn), you will still win the debate. I find arguments like “fiat does not exist” quite sophomoric. Most arguments placed in framework are really just hidden link/impact/alternative arguments that have no place in the framework debate. Losing one framework argument most likely will not lose you the debate. In fact, it is not necessary to have your own framework or even answer the other team’s framework to win. Overall, I generally dislike “clash of civilization debates”, and prefer debates on the more substantive aspects of the criticism.

Critiques: I voted negative on the critique last year quite a bit. I am much more versed in critical theory now, but if your argument is something you do not think I would be familiar with, take care, slow down, and be sure to explain everything a little bit better. I have found it much easier to understand things the first time I hear them as a judge, but it’s still an important consideration. I am not in the “alternative doesn’t matter” camp. Having a real world alternative is important, especially if you do not win framework arguments regarding language and discourse. If you win those types of framework arguments, then alternatives that rethink/reconceptualize/problematize the status quo are more persuasive. Critique debates are more likely won by isolating that the critique impacts/alternative solve the root cause of the affirmative impacts as opposed to winning a silly framework argument that unfairly seeks to exclude the other team.

Counterplans: A counterplan or good case arguments are necessary to win. Counterplans should be unconditional. You should write a copy of the counterplan text for the other team. You should take a question about the text of your counterplan. Your counterplan should probably not mess with fiat (delay, veto/cheato, consult, etc.) I believe I will generally err affirmative on counterplan theory in parliamentary debate (this is different than policy debate where the affirmative has more pre-round prep time, in-round prep time, and a literature base that limits down the number of predictable counterplans). With that said, I am very much in the textual competition camp, largely concerning issues of fairness. Case specific/topic specific counterplans are more effective, but I certainly understand the utility of agent/actor counterplans.

Permutations: A legitimate permutation is all of the plan and all or parts of the counterplan. Intrinsic and severance permutations are bad unless you win their legitimacy through a lens of textual competition. Permutations should never be advocacies. Multiple permutations are fine because there are a finite combination of legitimate permutations.

Disadvantages: This section will focus mostly on politics because I do not have issues with any other disadvantages (that I know of). Politics is generally boring and not well researched. Links that are based on the process of the plan (i.e. focus, delay, using political capital) make no sense since fiat assumes the plan happens immediately. Links based on the outcome of the plan (i.e. popularity, backlash, gaining political capital) are legitimate. Defense is very important against politics disadvantages since they most likely contain small risk/high magnitude impacts. Disadvantages alone are unlikely enough to win a debate, but those that both turn and outweigh the affirmative case are preferable.

Theory: All theory positions should have a stable interpretation, violation, reasons to prefer, and voting issues. I find most theory in parliamentary debate to be behind the times (no negative fiat, permutations should be advocacies, etc). If it has an interpretation/is an advocacy you should read it more than once to ensure that I have it written down. I will not vote on a speed criticism except in the event that you are markedly better than your opponents and are using it as a tool of exclusion as opposed to a strategic tool. Reverse voting issues are for lazy debaters.

Topicality: This argument is probably not genocide. It should be a voting issue. I will judge this debate either through an evaluation of the standards debate or through a lens of reasonability. Your interpretation should be grounded in a definition from the literature (or a dictionary) and should not be just an “interpretation” of the topic, like “back down = must be the WTO”.

Specification: These debates are better conducted through a discussion of what normal means is. Instead of defaulting to lazy debate by simply “out teching” another team on theory, you should engage in a substantive debate about what the most likely normal means mechanism of the plan is. This is what we call a link. I will vote on these arguments, but if you look at any policy backfiles and memorize those answers I do not see myself voting on these ridiculous arguments.

Speaker Points: I will give you between a 25-30, unless you say/do offensive things (i.e. racist/sexist/homophobic, etc. language). I start at a 27.5 and work my way from there. My average was somewhere around a 27.8 for the year.

As a final note, I really hate cheap shots. I also dislike having to decide debates on dropped arguments. Most parliamentary debates are won or lost on the technical aspect instead of the substantive aspect. I think this is unhealthy for the activity as a whole, and I will reward debaters who are willing to engage in the debate at hand instead of cowardly sidestepping in favor of a cheap shot. I can’t stand “knocking” and find it completely disruptive.

Have fun, respect your opponents, and work hard.

-Kevin