MCHarris
09-27-10, 03:01 PM
It is in the judge philosophy forum, it should be obvious what this is.
That is right, I am back. After Jewell, I thought I would remind people about my proclivities:
A) I intervene, deal with it. I try to limit intervention as much as possible, but here are at least SOME areas that I find partially unavoidable.
1) no one discusses the impact calculus in a way that relates to how arguments shook out. Say opp comparisons all assume they win counterplan solvency, prop calculus all assumes they win disad to the cplan. What do I do then? I try and figure out whether I think the cplan net benefit outweighs case in a vacuum. You know, just like the cplan wasn't in the debate since functionally it isn't. Easily avoided if either team makes some statements like "even if we lose ____, we still win the debate because _____".
2) Errant facts. I have seen too many yes/no debates. I tire of them and want to disincentivise inaccurate facts. I fact check in round if I have internet. I start this process usually when I am pretty confident I am right and I am looking for verification. If you are wrong, I am inclined to not care that the other team didn't say so. Yup, this makes me slightly more subjective than the average critic. Lesson, make sure you are right and know what you are talking about. When coaching, I explain it to my students as I don't care what you THINK is true for the convenience of your argument, I am interested in what IS true.
3) Debaters make mistakes, I will fix them. I assume people occasionally misspeak. Why else would opps at times say vote aff? I will try to give the smart interpretation to a bad argument. What it is I think the debater is trying to say. In policy, I would usually clarify this in CX, don't have that time in parli. Depending on tournament and time constraints, I have been known to ask questions anyway, but may or may not clarify what I think an argument is. Why, well, all language is somewhat open to interpretation/arbitrary/subjective so all argument is what I THINK the argument is, ie, interpreted.
B) I am not the best critic in the world. I easily get lost, and you will confound that by making dumb arguments. This includes arguments that are fascinatingly irrelevent. I.E. Even if I give you full weight of the argument, why in the world would I care? I find this most often in the final rebuttals when people object to new arguments that are meaningless anyway.
C) POs, make them. I want to know why people think things are/aren't "new". I am lenient on new. I like progression. I don't like sandbagging. So I am also strict on new.
D) I am a paradox. see C for one example.
E) Front load arguments. Ignore at your peril. Some examples of arguments that ought be front loaded. Dispositional/Conditional counterplans good, PICs good, PECs good, competition other than net beneficial good, topical cplans good (this can be short), resolution is the focus, opp arguments support the res equals vote Prop should be in the PMC. I will bet a lot of money, most LOCs would change if they knew the PM was willing to support ALL the resolution. I think it is arbitrary convenience for the PM to act like the opp should have predicted that as a viable argument. Basically, if there is a theory debate about an issue, start it early, start it often. If you think an aff is MOST likely to make an intrinsicness perm or severence perm, read perm standards in the counterplan shell. If you are prop and like to make intrinsicness test outs on disads, justify it in the PMC preferably, at MG when making them at worse.
F) I don't like what seems to be a move in parli to "dump" on my flow and hope to win on little drops here and there. I GREATLY prefer argument comparison, argument development, impact calculus come from debaters. In past philosophies, I have included these three parts, I cut and paste for relevence here "6. I frequently find argument intertwined. I am NOT a strict "flow" critic. Sometimes things make more sense to me macroscopically. This doesn't mean I don't flow, nor does it mean you shouldn't go line by line, it just means I process information thematically. ... When extending a topicality argument, some of the arguments are going to inherently include the rationale for it being a voting issue. Just because someone doesn't say "it is a voting issue" doesn't make it not one. I go on spirit not text.
7. COVER COVER COVER. Governments frequently lose in front of me because they haven't completely answered argument. Yes, the time spread is large. Figure out how to deal with that. Maybe it means making sure you win enough of certain issues that others become irrelevent. Maybe it means waxing a little less poetic and actually answering the MO/LOR.
8. I GREATLY prefer when teams do the impact calculus for me. I have frequently found myself giving strong preference to one side because they are successfully weaving the fabric of a complete story for me. Lots of what ifs/conditionals/if we lose this we still win because and this weighs against that … kinds of things. The worse thing you can do is spend the whole round as if you are winning everything because you will typically end up winning virtually nothing. Most things are good for some reasons and bad for others. Your job is to convince we of your position on balance."
Last but not least for now, this is how I think the MOC/LOR split SHOULD work. MOC cover like you are giving a 1AR. LOR go back and add comparisons, calculus, what if conditionals, overviews (boxes at top), thematic descriptions of positions. LOR should always start with, we win for these reasons, we'll win X and Y, or, Win Z. If prop wins Q, they would win, but they won't because_____".
That is right, I am back. After Jewell, I thought I would remind people about my proclivities:
A) I intervene, deal with it. I try to limit intervention as much as possible, but here are at least SOME areas that I find partially unavoidable.
1) no one discusses the impact calculus in a way that relates to how arguments shook out. Say opp comparisons all assume they win counterplan solvency, prop calculus all assumes they win disad to the cplan. What do I do then? I try and figure out whether I think the cplan net benefit outweighs case in a vacuum. You know, just like the cplan wasn't in the debate since functionally it isn't. Easily avoided if either team makes some statements like "even if we lose ____, we still win the debate because _____".
2) Errant facts. I have seen too many yes/no debates. I tire of them and want to disincentivise inaccurate facts. I fact check in round if I have internet. I start this process usually when I am pretty confident I am right and I am looking for verification. If you are wrong, I am inclined to not care that the other team didn't say so. Yup, this makes me slightly more subjective than the average critic. Lesson, make sure you are right and know what you are talking about. When coaching, I explain it to my students as I don't care what you THINK is true for the convenience of your argument, I am interested in what IS true.
3) Debaters make mistakes, I will fix them. I assume people occasionally misspeak. Why else would opps at times say vote aff? I will try to give the smart interpretation to a bad argument. What it is I think the debater is trying to say. In policy, I would usually clarify this in CX, don't have that time in parli. Depending on tournament and time constraints, I have been known to ask questions anyway, but may or may not clarify what I think an argument is. Why, well, all language is somewhat open to interpretation/arbitrary/subjective so all argument is what I THINK the argument is, ie, interpreted.
B) I am not the best critic in the world. I easily get lost, and you will confound that by making dumb arguments. This includes arguments that are fascinatingly irrelevent. I.E. Even if I give you full weight of the argument, why in the world would I care? I find this most often in the final rebuttals when people object to new arguments that are meaningless anyway.
C) POs, make them. I want to know why people think things are/aren't "new". I am lenient on new. I like progression. I don't like sandbagging. So I am also strict on new.
D) I am a paradox. see C for one example.
E) Front load arguments. Ignore at your peril. Some examples of arguments that ought be front loaded. Dispositional/Conditional counterplans good, PICs good, PECs good, competition other than net beneficial good, topical cplans good (this can be short), resolution is the focus, opp arguments support the res equals vote Prop should be in the PMC. I will bet a lot of money, most LOCs would change if they knew the PM was willing to support ALL the resolution. I think it is arbitrary convenience for the PM to act like the opp should have predicted that as a viable argument. Basically, if there is a theory debate about an issue, start it early, start it often. If you think an aff is MOST likely to make an intrinsicness perm or severence perm, read perm standards in the counterplan shell. If you are prop and like to make intrinsicness test outs on disads, justify it in the PMC preferably, at MG when making them at worse.
F) I don't like what seems to be a move in parli to "dump" on my flow and hope to win on little drops here and there. I GREATLY prefer argument comparison, argument development, impact calculus come from debaters. In past philosophies, I have included these three parts, I cut and paste for relevence here "6. I frequently find argument intertwined. I am NOT a strict "flow" critic. Sometimes things make more sense to me macroscopically. This doesn't mean I don't flow, nor does it mean you shouldn't go line by line, it just means I process information thematically. ... When extending a topicality argument, some of the arguments are going to inherently include the rationale for it being a voting issue. Just because someone doesn't say "it is a voting issue" doesn't make it not one. I go on spirit not text.
7. COVER COVER COVER. Governments frequently lose in front of me because they haven't completely answered argument. Yes, the time spread is large. Figure out how to deal with that. Maybe it means making sure you win enough of certain issues that others become irrelevent. Maybe it means waxing a little less poetic and actually answering the MO/LOR.
8. I GREATLY prefer when teams do the impact calculus for me. I have frequently found myself giving strong preference to one side because they are successfully weaving the fabric of a complete story for me. Lots of what ifs/conditionals/if we lose this we still win because and this weighs against that … kinds of things. The worse thing you can do is spend the whole round as if you are winning everything because you will typically end up winning virtually nothing. Most things are good for some reasons and bad for others. Your job is to convince we of your position on balance."
Last but not least for now, this is how I think the MOC/LOR split SHOULD work. MOC cover like you are giving a 1AR. LOR go back and add comparisons, calculus, what if conditionals, overviews (boxes at top), thematic descriptions of positions. LOR should always start with, we win for these reasons, we'll win X and Y, or, Win Z. If prop wins Q, they would win, but they won't because_____".