bmerrell
07-14-11, 02:14 AM
Brandon Merrell
Assistant Coach – Lewis and Clark (competed at SIU)
Some notes:
1) Due to the structure of parli, I believe all advocacies must be unconditional (additional explanation is provided in the “theory” section).
2) If you have been debating in college for more than five years, I will not vote for you. This is not because I dislike anyone personally, but rather because I believe students should be encouraged to graduate and move on from competition rather than prolong their debate careers. Since coaches and tournament directors often fail to enforce eligibility requirements, it’s up to judges to do so. If you have a personal stake in this and still want me to judge you, feel free to contact me directly to discuss your case.
3) I realize that I am a fairly expressive judge – sometimes this is because of the arguments being made, sometimes it’s because of something entirely unrelated. I can’t really help my reactions, and I don’t know if there's any reason I should try to check them anyways. It's a communicative activity and feedback from the audience seems a reasonable component of that process.
If you have specific questions that extend beyond the purview of this philosophy, ask me before the round.
Approach to Judging:
With the exception of certain fundamental beliefs, which are clearly outlined below, I'll do my best to fairly evaluate any clearly-defended and impacted arguments. This philosophy explains how certain arguments make more sense to me than do others, but even if you quote from this directly you won't automatically win an argument; you still need to explain, debate, and defend your position.
As a default, I determine based on arguments in the round whether the topical plan presented by the affirmative is preferable to the status quo or a competitive option. If you want to change this decision structure, then you should do so explicitly by providing an alternative rubric with which I can evaluate the debate. If the other team accedes to it or fails to prove it less desirable, I’ll use it.
Argument Evaluation:
First, although most issues should be debated out, the caveat is this: if your strategy relies on contradicting fundamental tenets of debate, then I'm not the judge for you. There are others, but some of the basics are: rules and time limits should be obeyed, negatives have access to fiat (though there are various limits on its specific application), the death of the activity would be bad, and affirmatives should defend a topical plan (though they can justify it in different ways or argue their representations, etc. are equally or more important than the effects of the plan).
Second, although I'll attempt to judge fairly I do not claim to be "tabula rasa" and am perfectly comfortable passing judgment. If a statement does not rise to a minimum threshold of coherence and explanation, you shouldn't expect to win the round on it as I am likely to disregard it. At the very least, I will be sympathetic to the suggestion that I consider the argument insufficiently important to independently merit the rejection of the other team.
Third, you must make arguments to win a debate. Those arguments must be clear enough - both in structure and explanation - that they allow your opponents a fair chance to respond. Do not interpret this as an invitation to engage in "race-the-bottom" rounds by claiming abuse where none exists; there's a difference between an argument that is misunderstood and an argument that is deliberately evasive. Suffice to say that I think it is admirable when people are clear about what they defend and I am annoyed by those who play chicken with their arguments.
Finally, an argument must include a claim, warrant, and application. This is the difference between the claim that “the economy is weak now” and the argument that “the economy is weak, as evidenced by high unemployment” (with an accompanying statistic, the relevance of which is explained). Sometimes you’ll have hard numbers, sometimes you won’t, but whenever you make an argument you should have a logical warrant to substantiate your claim. Once you’ve made an argument, you should then apply it to another statement in the round such that the interaction between them is obvious.
New arguments:
Cross-applications are not new arguments if they already interact with the scenario toward which you're applying them. For example, if the MG answers a SPEC position by explaining that the judge should err affirmative on procedurals, it isn't new to cross-apply that argument to another procedural in the PMR. The argument was already in the round, and (regardless of the sheet of paper on which it appeared) it already informed how the judge should evaluate all procedurals. I don't even think it's a cross-application; it's really an extension of an argument that already intuitively applied.
Conversely, if the MG responds to a US-China war scenario by arguing that the two countries are economically tied and thus will not escalate hostilities, a PMR application of that argument to a US-Russia scenario would be new. Even if the PMR can apply the generic analysis that economically-tied countries won't allow conflict to escalate, they would need to show why it's applicable to the new scenario by explaining how Russia and the US are bound economically. That analysis would be new (it's basically a new link to an argument that previously only applied elsewhere). Thus, even if the generic cross-application was tolerated it wouldn't do you any good because absent a (new) link the argument would be unwarranted and irrelevant. These are obviously gray issues, so you should point of order if you think it's a close call. Either way, your best bet is to explicitly explain how arguments interact beginning in the early speeches and thereby avoid this discussion altogether.
Obviously if you cross-apply an argument, the other team's responses to that argument are also evaluated.
Argument comparisons are not new, but the initial facts need to be present in the MG / MO. You’re obviously even better off if the comparisons emerge earlier, but given time pressures it’s presumptuous to assume this is possible. Suffice to say, I allow comparison between arguments and prioritization of positions in the rebuttals – that’s the point. I am deeply saddened when LORs begin to engage in argument analysis, are point-of-ordered, and then default to paraphrasing the MO for the remainder of their speech. As long as you are drawing comparisons, evaluating strength, or suggesting preference (rather than creating entirely new material), you’re probably fine.
Finally, I don't consider an argument "conceded" if it is intuitively answered by another argument in a speech, regardless of where the ink is placed.
Points of Order / Points of Information / Texts:
I don’t require points of order to be made in order to disregard new arguments, but I would prefer if you did call them when you think an argument is close. I will not punish you for calling points of order, but it might annoy me if you are obviously using them to interrupt your opponent when they are on a roll.
I dislike it when points of order devolve into shouting or verbal jousting matches. Keep it simple and civil. During points of order I will allow team A to explain why they believe an argument was new, then allow team B to respond, and finally allow team A to clarify their point or order before team B’s speech resumes.
You may take as many questions as you like and you may take them whenever you like (during your speech), but you should always accept at least one on the substance of your advocacy. Repeating a text / interpretation does not count as answering a question. Likewise, answering with something along the lines of “it’s explained in solvency / the advantage” is only acceptable if you’re being honest. If you don’t directly provide an answer to the question later in the speech, I think it’s reasonable for your opponent to ask again. Alternatively, if you ask a question for which the answer has already been given I may think you’re wasting time. I dislike the trend in the community of having a partner answer questions while the person whose turn it is to speak continues to make arguments.
You can talk to your opponent as often as you like during their speech (it's a team event, after all) but it may affect speaks if it occurs to a disruptive extent. I also recognize that it's important for partners to talk to one another while the other team is speaking, and while I don't expect you to whisper I'd prefer if you kept the volume of your combined voices slightly lower than that of the person who is delivering a speech.
You should repeat the text of an advocacy and also provide a copy to your opponent upon request. I think it is unreasonable to expect an MG to provide a written copy of a counterinterp or permutation given the lack of prep time (though verbally repeating the more complex texts may be appreciated). Similarly, you don’t need to repeat the entire text of the plan or counterplan in a perm (i.e. “do both” is sufficient if your intent is to combine both texts).
If you read an advocacy you shouldn’t sandbag the text until the end of your speech unless you’re willing to take at least one serious question about it and also give your opponents some flexibility with permutations / responses given the lack of clarification you provide.
Links and Impacts:
I think the strength of the link is most important when evaluating a disadvantage. For example, if the uniqueness arguments are very strong, then the disad requires a high-magnitude link to trigger the impact. Conversely, if a disad is "brinkish," then although the negative has to win a smaller link they also need to distinguish the plan from the conditions that caused the brink.
This is particularly true of major impacts. Global warming, for example, is probably already occurring in the status quo – thus, to argue it effectively a team should strive to explain what amount of warming exists now, when it will begin to trigger their impacts, what percentage of that problem the plan will address, etc. You should also ask yourself whether it is necessary for the plan to solve warming permanently or whether it would be sufficient to delay by 30-50 years the terrible impact it would incur. The latter is often just as useful with the benefit that it is more realistic, but for some reason we seem driven to talk about impacts in the black and white terms of certain extinction and absolute solvency. I certainly don’t require you to approach impacts in a more "honest" way, but I will likely be more impressed if you do.
Finally, I think many teams make "risk of a link" arguments when they are really saying "we only have uniqueness." Uniqueness is almost never absolute, so it neither controls link direction nor allows you to assert the existence of a link if none exists. Although uniqueness describes the probability of a particular chain of events occurring, the link is what triggers the action. Thus, you must win a link, control its net-direction relative to defense and link-turns, and then explain why the link is sufficient to trigger your scenario before you can assess your impacts.
Terminal defense exists. Additionally, there are often cases in which some risk of an impact technically remains but is rendered so insignificant that it bears minimal relevance in my decision-making.
Theory:
I'll vote on theory if told to do so, but you should warrant these arguments well if that's your strategy because I am easily persuaded that rejecting an argument is sufficient to solve the impact to most theory debates (except on questions of status, obviously). I think theory should be used to protect yourself from unfair strategies, rather than as an MG tool to give your PMR an out. In short, theory should prevent abuse rather than be abused.
You should make theory arguments that are assumptive of the structure and format of parli, rather than reading generic policy blocks. For example, I think that advocacies in parli must be unconditional (for a full account of the various reasons, please see this post: http://net-benefits.net/showpost.php?p=225013&postcount=17). Similarly, a tailored defense of a specific position is likely to serve you well against a generic “____ bad” black.
In other forms of debate, I generally think that the "gold standard" for argument legitimacy is specific evidence. This is obviously difficult to assess in parli, but there are instances in which it is applicable. For example, if a major political issue is being debated in Congress and one party has proposed an alternative which is essentially your PIC, when your opponent says 'PICs bad' I can be easily persuaded by an explanation of how your CP is a real-world policy alternative to the plan. Similarly, arguments about how CP solvency arguments need only be reflexive in quality with those of the affirmative are appealing to me.
In general, I tend to believe that PICs that focus the debate to substantial elements of the plan are good, while those that rely on "normal means" for competition are not. I’m also highly sympathetic to the argument that affirmatives should not be required to engage specific PICs when the aff is required to defend the entirety of a highly-specific and narrow resolution without much room for parametrics. This is true both because the plan is inherently predictable given such a topic (and thus the negative shouldn’t be forced to solve the affirmative in order to respond to it), and also because narrow topics deny the affirmative the flexibility to pick their plan or sufficient time to prep answers to predictable counterplans.
This should be obvious, but competition is determined by mutual exclusivity and net-benefits. I don’t think you need to go further than that, but as far as textual and functional competition are concerned (mechanisms for assessing mutual exclusivity), I think counterplans should ideally be both functionally and textually competitive but have a lenient interpretation of what textual competition constitutes. In short, I think we allow texts to be abbreviated for the sake of efficiency but that the unabbreviated forms should be compared when assessing competition. Thus, if the plan text is "All 50 states should do X," I believe the CP "All 50 states except Florida should do X" can be considered textually competitive although it seems to merely add words to the plan. This is because the unabbreviated plan would write out all 50 states if written in its entirety, while the unabbreviated CP would list all states but Florida and would therefore be textually competitive. When pressed, the negative is obviously still required to explain why their text is or would be textually competitive if written in its entirety. The fact that such minor rephrasing can alter competition is another reason why I dislike textual competition, especially given the lack of precision inherent to the writing of texts without prep time. I'm happy to hear condition and consult arguments, especially if you have a specific lit base. If you have questions about this, feel free to ask.
Kritiks:
Note:
Against a good team, I think the K is generally on the wrong side of the framework debate, the wrong side of the permutation double-bind, the losing side of whether the alternative will accomplish anything, and is at best tied on whether a discussion of critical theory yields better education than an analysis of policy choices. However, I also believe that most parli teams are bad at answering the K and recognize that it can often function as a good strategic option. Thus, if you're confident in your preparation and feel that this is your strongest argument then you should feel free to read it in front of me. I'll still evaluate the round based on arguments made within it, but you should be aware of my personal opinions and predispositions.
Specifics:
Ideally, I shouldn't need to understand the deeper nuances of your kritik as long as I know how it interacts with the other arguments in the debate. I'm happy to listen to and vote on all manner of criticisms, but I'll warn you that I'm not particularly well-versed on much of the literature beyond its usage in debate. I also attempt to avoid doing any work to reconstruct the meaning and/or utility of arguments that were not coherent to me when they were made in the round. Thus, providing a clear explanation for your argument is probably more important than trying to impress me with your cultural studies vocab list.
Negatives should have specific links, clearly stated implications, and strong answers to perms. You should also lay out a clear alternative. Affirmatives tend to lose to kritiks in front of me when they don't aggressively answer and engage the alternative or when they forget to leverage their case. Negatives lose to critical affs when they fail to explain how their arguments (framework or otherwise) interact with the claims of the PMC. I am highly susceptible to arguments that allow the aff to be weighed alongside the K.
Ethical imperatives are fine, but if you drop / badly lose a major impact then I will have a hard time finding your argument persuasive. You're much better off putting at least some defense against other impacts, even if you have flaming "ignore other consequences" arguments.
As far as performance goes, you should keep your clothes on but otherwise I consider almost anything to be a valid argument as long as you win your framework. That said, I often don't enjoy performance as done in parli; I find the debate to be shallow and annoying and vastly prefer other arguments. Regardless of what you tell me, I also won’t automatically find your performance more persuasive than any other well-developed and logically-presented argument. Indeed, if you don't explain it, then I will find it far less persuasive.
Topicality / Procedurals:
Topicality:
Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. Any affirmative that does not defend a topical plan loses.
Topicality is a question of competing definitions. Within this framework, it should be obvious that if you do not “meet” any interpretation within the round it is difficult to vote for you. The standards are explanation of why a given definition is good in the context of the topic, not why the use of a definition would be good for debate or why it would be better in a particular round. For example, standards might argue that a definition is used by experts in the field or is more precise and more relevant to policymaking than your opponent's definition, etc.
To win topicality, the affirmative should win that they either meet the negative’s definition or meet a definition that is at least as good as that of the negative. The automatic result of an affirmative plan not being topical is the loss of predictable ground and topic specific education, but the negative team should attempt to explain why those arguments (as well as the fact that topicality is a rule of the game) are sufficient reasons to vote. If the negative wins that their interpretation is marginally better in a highly specific way, they need to justify why that minor distinction should be rewarded with the ballot.
Alternatively, affirmatives should argue that although being topical is required, there are multiple definitions of a word and minor distinctions in quality may not be sufficiently important to merit rejection. Explanations about how the affirmative still provides ground or education are not counter standards in support of a definition but simply explanations for why the judge could still vote affirmative even if the plan is not topical. Because they are not justifications in support of a definition, these arguments bear minimal relevance in determining which definition should be preferred, but do explain why a judge may not need to vote against a team even though their plan is not strictly topical.
Finally, remember, the in-round benefits of using a definition are irrelevant if that definition is arbitrary, inaccessible, or inappropriate. For example, even if the affirmative won that there were a plethora of educational benefits and reciprocal ground claims that could be accessed via a debate about sanctions, it would be irrelevant if they failed to win that "sanctions" were an appropriate definition for a word or term in the topic.
Specs:
I think that most SPEC arguments are silly and lack a resolutional basis for their justification. I’m also persuaded by arguments that affirmatives should simply accede to the negative’s choice in determining the normal means scenario for the plan, at least insofar as the suggested scenario is reasonable. Also keep in mind that I think PICs should be limited to explicit mandates of the plan, so don’t count on a SPEC + “normals means” PIC strategy in front of me unless you’re prepared to defend it both during the round and during my decision.
OSPEC is slightly more persuasive (especially in parli), because absent ability to prepare responses to hyper-specific affirmatives, negative teams can be put at a disadvantage. It's still normally a waste of time, though, and I'd prefer you debate something else.
Presentation / Speed:
I reward substance over style. It will annoy me if your arguments are blippy or under-warranted, particularly on theory. I reserve the option to reduce speaker points if you are exceptionally rude or threatening to your opponents, but this would require extreme behavior as I fully appreciate good-natured heckling. I flow reasonably well, and I'll try to prompt you should speed or clarity become an issue. I would prefer if you attempt to engage your opponents rather than rely on speed as means of excluding them.
Miscellaneous:
Plans / Fiat:
I think the trichotomy is irrelevant because all statements can be logically supported or demonstrated with a plan, and plans are good. However, so that I feel less guilty about intervening in favor of this approach, if you are challenged on this issue you should provide a resolutional justification for your use of a plan. It’s irrelevant that plans are good if you do not win a resolutional justification for your decision to use one. Nevertheless, this should not be difficult because I believe there is always a justification, you must merely point to something in the topic.
Fiat happens immediately. Neither counterplans nor affirmatives should mess with this.
Because fiat happens immediately, politics links that are based on the process of the plan (delay, using capital on the plan, focus, horse-trading etc.) don’t make sense to me. Politics links based on the outcome of the plan (changes in capital or popularity based on response to or perception of the plan) are better.
The plan cannot be rolled back, either with the same actor or another actor. It is enduring, it is durable, and it is permanent.
Permutations are tests of competition. That’s all they ever are.
Intrinsicness:
Intrinsicness arguments (not against perms, against positions) are silly. If you need me to explain why, I’ll take you back to 1992, but in short they’re a way to claim that “the link might not necessarily happen,” despite the fact that your opponents have made logical arguments for why it would. You can argue that the action of your plan would result in changes or reactions that would solve your opponents’ argument (those are called link-turns and no-links), but you cannot fiat (either directly or artificially) the implementation of additional steps beyond the plan’s original mandates. Also, this is debate – you’re better off answering their arguments (and defending your own) than trying to sidestep them.
Rebuttals:
Good rebuttalists (and hence successful ones) resolve arguments. This means identifying pressure points on the various positions in the debate and making arguments about why your cards / warrants / analytics are stronger than those of your opponent. Simply extending arguments absent comparison leaves it up to me to decide which is "better," and you probably will not be happy with how I resolve that question without your guidance. Even concessions must be impacted. Any argument that does not directly answer or eventually resolve the question, "For whom am I to vote, and why?" is irrelevant, conceded or not.
I think that evaluating arguments is the most difficult thing to do when judging parli, so teams are at a major advantage in front of me when they make those comparisons themselves. Be honest, but explain to me why your warrants are more specific, more encompassing, more appropriate, more recent, more qualified, more predictive, more empirically accurate, etc. than those of your opponent. If one team does this and the other doesn’t, then the former is far more likely to win the round.
To be persuasive, you should be honest about how the debate has progressed. I grow tired of debaters who insist that they are somehow winning every argument. Admit your own weaknesses and recognize the strengths of your opponents - it makes you seem more credible.
I think defense is the most underutilized tool in debate. Debaters tend to focus too much on their impact and not nearly enough on how / whether it is accessed.
I don’t allow parli teams to split the block. The LOR does not need to extend arguments line-by-line from the MO, but should primarily concern themselves with argument / position comparison, not the creation of new arguments.
Other:
Presumption is toward less change relative to the status quo.
I don’t mind if you use the beginning of your speech time as prep time – it’s your time to do with as you wish. If you choose to do this, I’ll stop time mid-speech while you give your roadmap before you resume the remainder of your “speech” (because roadmaps aren’t timed anyways).
I think that death negates personhood. I don’t think that forcing people to make choices is an internal link to dehumanization. In fact, decision-making is probably central to our humanity.
RVIs are for people who cannot debate and for judges who cannot think.
Have fun. That’s ultimately why we’re all here.
Assistant Coach – Lewis and Clark (competed at SIU)
Some notes:
1) Due to the structure of parli, I believe all advocacies must be unconditional (additional explanation is provided in the “theory” section).
2) If you have been debating in college for more than five years, I will not vote for you. This is not because I dislike anyone personally, but rather because I believe students should be encouraged to graduate and move on from competition rather than prolong their debate careers. Since coaches and tournament directors often fail to enforce eligibility requirements, it’s up to judges to do so. If you have a personal stake in this and still want me to judge you, feel free to contact me directly to discuss your case.
3) I realize that I am a fairly expressive judge – sometimes this is because of the arguments being made, sometimes it’s because of something entirely unrelated. I can’t really help my reactions, and I don’t know if there's any reason I should try to check them anyways. It's a communicative activity and feedback from the audience seems a reasonable component of that process.
If you have specific questions that extend beyond the purview of this philosophy, ask me before the round.
Approach to Judging:
With the exception of certain fundamental beliefs, which are clearly outlined below, I'll do my best to fairly evaluate any clearly-defended and impacted arguments. This philosophy explains how certain arguments make more sense to me than do others, but even if you quote from this directly you won't automatically win an argument; you still need to explain, debate, and defend your position.
As a default, I determine based on arguments in the round whether the topical plan presented by the affirmative is preferable to the status quo or a competitive option. If you want to change this decision structure, then you should do so explicitly by providing an alternative rubric with which I can evaluate the debate. If the other team accedes to it or fails to prove it less desirable, I’ll use it.
Argument Evaluation:
First, although most issues should be debated out, the caveat is this: if your strategy relies on contradicting fundamental tenets of debate, then I'm not the judge for you. There are others, but some of the basics are: rules and time limits should be obeyed, negatives have access to fiat (though there are various limits on its specific application), the death of the activity would be bad, and affirmatives should defend a topical plan (though they can justify it in different ways or argue their representations, etc. are equally or more important than the effects of the plan).
Second, although I'll attempt to judge fairly I do not claim to be "tabula rasa" and am perfectly comfortable passing judgment. If a statement does not rise to a minimum threshold of coherence and explanation, you shouldn't expect to win the round on it as I am likely to disregard it. At the very least, I will be sympathetic to the suggestion that I consider the argument insufficiently important to independently merit the rejection of the other team.
Third, you must make arguments to win a debate. Those arguments must be clear enough - both in structure and explanation - that they allow your opponents a fair chance to respond. Do not interpret this as an invitation to engage in "race-the-bottom" rounds by claiming abuse where none exists; there's a difference between an argument that is misunderstood and an argument that is deliberately evasive. Suffice to say that I think it is admirable when people are clear about what they defend and I am annoyed by those who play chicken with their arguments.
Finally, an argument must include a claim, warrant, and application. This is the difference between the claim that “the economy is weak now” and the argument that “the economy is weak, as evidenced by high unemployment” (with an accompanying statistic, the relevance of which is explained). Sometimes you’ll have hard numbers, sometimes you won’t, but whenever you make an argument you should have a logical warrant to substantiate your claim. Once you’ve made an argument, you should then apply it to another statement in the round such that the interaction between them is obvious.
New arguments:
Cross-applications are not new arguments if they already interact with the scenario toward which you're applying them. For example, if the MG answers a SPEC position by explaining that the judge should err affirmative on procedurals, it isn't new to cross-apply that argument to another procedural in the PMR. The argument was already in the round, and (regardless of the sheet of paper on which it appeared) it already informed how the judge should evaluate all procedurals. I don't even think it's a cross-application; it's really an extension of an argument that already intuitively applied.
Conversely, if the MG responds to a US-China war scenario by arguing that the two countries are economically tied and thus will not escalate hostilities, a PMR application of that argument to a US-Russia scenario would be new. Even if the PMR can apply the generic analysis that economically-tied countries won't allow conflict to escalate, they would need to show why it's applicable to the new scenario by explaining how Russia and the US are bound economically. That analysis would be new (it's basically a new link to an argument that previously only applied elsewhere). Thus, even if the generic cross-application was tolerated it wouldn't do you any good because absent a (new) link the argument would be unwarranted and irrelevant. These are obviously gray issues, so you should point of order if you think it's a close call. Either way, your best bet is to explicitly explain how arguments interact beginning in the early speeches and thereby avoid this discussion altogether.
Obviously if you cross-apply an argument, the other team's responses to that argument are also evaluated.
Argument comparisons are not new, but the initial facts need to be present in the MG / MO. You’re obviously even better off if the comparisons emerge earlier, but given time pressures it’s presumptuous to assume this is possible. Suffice to say, I allow comparison between arguments and prioritization of positions in the rebuttals – that’s the point. I am deeply saddened when LORs begin to engage in argument analysis, are point-of-ordered, and then default to paraphrasing the MO for the remainder of their speech. As long as you are drawing comparisons, evaluating strength, or suggesting preference (rather than creating entirely new material), you’re probably fine.
Finally, I don't consider an argument "conceded" if it is intuitively answered by another argument in a speech, regardless of where the ink is placed.
Points of Order / Points of Information / Texts:
I don’t require points of order to be made in order to disregard new arguments, but I would prefer if you did call them when you think an argument is close. I will not punish you for calling points of order, but it might annoy me if you are obviously using them to interrupt your opponent when they are on a roll.
I dislike it when points of order devolve into shouting or verbal jousting matches. Keep it simple and civil. During points of order I will allow team A to explain why they believe an argument was new, then allow team B to respond, and finally allow team A to clarify their point or order before team B’s speech resumes.
You may take as many questions as you like and you may take them whenever you like (during your speech), but you should always accept at least one on the substance of your advocacy. Repeating a text / interpretation does not count as answering a question. Likewise, answering with something along the lines of “it’s explained in solvency / the advantage” is only acceptable if you’re being honest. If you don’t directly provide an answer to the question later in the speech, I think it’s reasonable for your opponent to ask again. Alternatively, if you ask a question for which the answer has already been given I may think you’re wasting time. I dislike the trend in the community of having a partner answer questions while the person whose turn it is to speak continues to make arguments.
You can talk to your opponent as often as you like during their speech (it's a team event, after all) but it may affect speaks if it occurs to a disruptive extent. I also recognize that it's important for partners to talk to one another while the other team is speaking, and while I don't expect you to whisper I'd prefer if you kept the volume of your combined voices slightly lower than that of the person who is delivering a speech.
You should repeat the text of an advocacy and also provide a copy to your opponent upon request. I think it is unreasonable to expect an MG to provide a written copy of a counterinterp or permutation given the lack of prep time (though verbally repeating the more complex texts may be appreciated). Similarly, you don’t need to repeat the entire text of the plan or counterplan in a perm (i.e. “do both” is sufficient if your intent is to combine both texts).
If you read an advocacy you shouldn’t sandbag the text until the end of your speech unless you’re willing to take at least one serious question about it and also give your opponents some flexibility with permutations / responses given the lack of clarification you provide.
Links and Impacts:
I think the strength of the link is most important when evaluating a disadvantage. For example, if the uniqueness arguments are very strong, then the disad requires a high-magnitude link to trigger the impact. Conversely, if a disad is "brinkish," then although the negative has to win a smaller link they also need to distinguish the plan from the conditions that caused the brink.
This is particularly true of major impacts. Global warming, for example, is probably already occurring in the status quo – thus, to argue it effectively a team should strive to explain what amount of warming exists now, when it will begin to trigger their impacts, what percentage of that problem the plan will address, etc. You should also ask yourself whether it is necessary for the plan to solve warming permanently or whether it would be sufficient to delay by 30-50 years the terrible impact it would incur. The latter is often just as useful with the benefit that it is more realistic, but for some reason we seem driven to talk about impacts in the black and white terms of certain extinction and absolute solvency. I certainly don’t require you to approach impacts in a more "honest" way, but I will likely be more impressed if you do.
Finally, I think many teams make "risk of a link" arguments when they are really saying "we only have uniqueness." Uniqueness is almost never absolute, so it neither controls link direction nor allows you to assert the existence of a link if none exists. Although uniqueness describes the probability of a particular chain of events occurring, the link is what triggers the action. Thus, you must win a link, control its net-direction relative to defense and link-turns, and then explain why the link is sufficient to trigger your scenario before you can assess your impacts.
Terminal defense exists. Additionally, there are often cases in which some risk of an impact technically remains but is rendered so insignificant that it bears minimal relevance in my decision-making.
Theory:
I'll vote on theory if told to do so, but you should warrant these arguments well if that's your strategy because I am easily persuaded that rejecting an argument is sufficient to solve the impact to most theory debates (except on questions of status, obviously). I think theory should be used to protect yourself from unfair strategies, rather than as an MG tool to give your PMR an out. In short, theory should prevent abuse rather than be abused.
You should make theory arguments that are assumptive of the structure and format of parli, rather than reading generic policy blocks. For example, I think that advocacies in parli must be unconditional (for a full account of the various reasons, please see this post: http://net-benefits.net/showpost.php?p=225013&postcount=17). Similarly, a tailored defense of a specific position is likely to serve you well against a generic “____ bad” black.
In other forms of debate, I generally think that the "gold standard" for argument legitimacy is specific evidence. This is obviously difficult to assess in parli, but there are instances in which it is applicable. For example, if a major political issue is being debated in Congress and one party has proposed an alternative which is essentially your PIC, when your opponent says 'PICs bad' I can be easily persuaded by an explanation of how your CP is a real-world policy alternative to the plan. Similarly, arguments about how CP solvency arguments need only be reflexive in quality with those of the affirmative are appealing to me.
In general, I tend to believe that PICs that focus the debate to substantial elements of the plan are good, while those that rely on "normal means" for competition are not. I’m also highly sympathetic to the argument that affirmatives should not be required to engage specific PICs when the aff is required to defend the entirety of a highly-specific and narrow resolution without much room for parametrics. This is true both because the plan is inherently predictable given such a topic (and thus the negative shouldn’t be forced to solve the affirmative in order to respond to it), and also because narrow topics deny the affirmative the flexibility to pick their plan or sufficient time to prep answers to predictable counterplans.
This should be obvious, but competition is determined by mutual exclusivity and net-benefits. I don’t think you need to go further than that, but as far as textual and functional competition are concerned (mechanisms for assessing mutual exclusivity), I think counterplans should ideally be both functionally and textually competitive but have a lenient interpretation of what textual competition constitutes. In short, I think we allow texts to be abbreviated for the sake of efficiency but that the unabbreviated forms should be compared when assessing competition. Thus, if the plan text is "All 50 states should do X," I believe the CP "All 50 states except Florida should do X" can be considered textually competitive although it seems to merely add words to the plan. This is because the unabbreviated plan would write out all 50 states if written in its entirety, while the unabbreviated CP would list all states but Florida and would therefore be textually competitive. When pressed, the negative is obviously still required to explain why their text is or would be textually competitive if written in its entirety. The fact that such minor rephrasing can alter competition is another reason why I dislike textual competition, especially given the lack of precision inherent to the writing of texts without prep time. I'm happy to hear condition and consult arguments, especially if you have a specific lit base. If you have questions about this, feel free to ask.
Kritiks:
Note:
Against a good team, I think the K is generally on the wrong side of the framework debate, the wrong side of the permutation double-bind, the losing side of whether the alternative will accomplish anything, and is at best tied on whether a discussion of critical theory yields better education than an analysis of policy choices. However, I also believe that most parli teams are bad at answering the K and recognize that it can often function as a good strategic option. Thus, if you're confident in your preparation and feel that this is your strongest argument then you should feel free to read it in front of me. I'll still evaluate the round based on arguments made within it, but you should be aware of my personal opinions and predispositions.
Specifics:
Ideally, I shouldn't need to understand the deeper nuances of your kritik as long as I know how it interacts with the other arguments in the debate. I'm happy to listen to and vote on all manner of criticisms, but I'll warn you that I'm not particularly well-versed on much of the literature beyond its usage in debate. I also attempt to avoid doing any work to reconstruct the meaning and/or utility of arguments that were not coherent to me when they were made in the round. Thus, providing a clear explanation for your argument is probably more important than trying to impress me with your cultural studies vocab list.
Negatives should have specific links, clearly stated implications, and strong answers to perms. You should also lay out a clear alternative. Affirmatives tend to lose to kritiks in front of me when they don't aggressively answer and engage the alternative or when they forget to leverage their case. Negatives lose to critical affs when they fail to explain how their arguments (framework or otherwise) interact with the claims of the PMC. I am highly susceptible to arguments that allow the aff to be weighed alongside the K.
Ethical imperatives are fine, but if you drop / badly lose a major impact then I will have a hard time finding your argument persuasive. You're much better off putting at least some defense against other impacts, even if you have flaming "ignore other consequences" arguments.
As far as performance goes, you should keep your clothes on but otherwise I consider almost anything to be a valid argument as long as you win your framework. That said, I often don't enjoy performance as done in parli; I find the debate to be shallow and annoying and vastly prefer other arguments. Regardless of what you tell me, I also won’t automatically find your performance more persuasive than any other well-developed and logically-presented argument. Indeed, if you don't explain it, then I will find it far less persuasive.
Topicality / Procedurals:
Topicality:
Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. Any affirmative that does not defend a topical plan loses.
Topicality is a question of competing definitions. Within this framework, it should be obvious that if you do not “meet” any interpretation within the round it is difficult to vote for you. The standards are explanation of why a given definition is good in the context of the topic, not why the use of a definition would be good for debate or why it would be better in a particular round. For example, standards might argue that a definition is used by experts in the field or is more precise and more relevant to policymaking than your opponent's definition, etc.
To win topicality, the affirmative should win that they either meet the negative’s definition or meet a definition that is at least as good as that of the negative. The automatic result of an affirmative plan not being topical is the loss of predictable ground and topic specific education, but the negative team should attempt to explain why those arguments (as well as the fact that topicality is a rule of the game) are sufficient reasons to vote. If the negative wins that their interpretation is marginally better in a highly specific way, they need to justify why that minor distinction should be rewarded with the ballot.
Alternatively, affirmatives should argue that although being topical is required, there are multiple definitions of a word and minor distinctions in quality may not be sufficiently important to merit rejection. Explanations about how the affirmative still provides ground or education are not counter standards in support of a definition but simply explanations for why the judge could still vote affirmative even if the plan is not topical. Because they are not justifications in support of a definition, these arguments bear minimal relevance in determining which definition should be preferred, but do explain why a judge may not need to vote against a team even though their plan is not strictly topical.
Finally, remember, the in-round benefits of using a definition are irrelevant if that definition is arbitrary, inaccessible, or inappropriate. For example, even if the affirmative won that there were a plethora of educational benefits and reciprocal ground claims that could be accessed via a debate about sanctions, it would be irrelevant if they failed to win that "sanctions" were an appropriate definition for a word or term in the topic.
Specs:
I think that most SPEC arguments are silly and lack a resolutional basis for their justification. I’m also persuaded by arguments that affirmatives should simply accede to the negative’s choice in determining the normal means scenario for the plan, at least insofar as the suggested scenario is reasonable. Also keep in mind that I think PICs should be limited to explicit mandates of the plan, so don’t count on a SPEC + “normals means” PIC strategy in front of me unless you’re prepared to defend it both during the round and during my decision.
OSPEC is slightly more persuasive (especially in parli), because absent ability to prepare responses to hyper-specific affirmatives, negative teams can be put at a disadvantage. It's still normally a waste of time, though, and I'd prefer you debate something else.
Presentation / Speed:
I reward substance over style. It will annoy me if your arguments are blippy or under-warranted, particularly on theory. I reserve the option to reduce speaker points if you are exceptionally rude or threatening to your opponents, but this would require extreme behavior as I fully appreciate good-natured heckling. I flow reasonably well, and I'll try to prompt you should speed or clarity become an issue. I would prefer if you attempt to engage your opponents rather than rely on speed as means of excluding them.
Miscellaneous:
Plans / Fiat:
I think the trichotomy is irrelevant because all statements can be logically supported or demonstrated with a plan, and plans are good. However, so that I feel less guilty about intervening in favor of this approach, if you are challenged on this issue you should provide a resolutional justification for your use of a plan. It’s irrelevant that plans are good if you do not win a resolutional justification for your decision to use one. Nevertheless, this should not be difficult because I believe there is always a justification, you must merely point to something in the topic.
Fiat happens immediately. Neither counterplans nor affirmatives should mess with this.
Because fiat happens immediately, politics links that are based on the process of the plan (delay, using capital on the plan, focus, horse-trading etc.) don’t make sense to me. Politics links based on the outcome of the plan (changes in capital or popularity based on response to or perception of the plan) are better.
The plan cannot be rolled back, either with the same actor or another actor. It is enduring, it is durable, and it is permanent.
Permutations are tests of competition. That’s all they ever are.
Intrinsicness:
Intrinsicness arguments (not against perms, against positions) are silly. If you need me to explain why, I’ll take you back to 1992, but in short they’re a way to claim that “the link might not necessarily happen,” despite the fact that your opponents have made logical arguments for why it would. You can argue that the action of your plan would result in changes or reactions that would solve your opponents’ argument (those are called link-turns and no-links), but you cannot fiat (either directly or artificially) the implementation of additional steps beyond the plan’s original mandates. Also, this is debate – you’re better off answering their arguments (and defending your own) than trying to sidestep them.
Rebuttals:
Good rebuttalists (and hence successful ones) resolve arguments. This means identifying pressure points on the various positions in the debate and making arguments about why your cards / warrants / analytics are stronger than those of your opponent. Simply extending arguments absent comparison leaves it up to me to decide which is "better," and you probably will not be happy with how I resolve that question without your guidance. Even concessions must be impacted. Any argument that does not directly answer or eventually resolve the question, "For whom am I to vote, and why?" is irrelevant, conceded or not.
I think that evaluating arguments is the most difficult thing to do when judging parli, so teams are at a major advantage in front of me when they make those comparisons themselves. Be honest, but explain to me why your warrants are more specific, more encompassing, more appropriate, more recent, more qualified, more predictive, more empirically accurate, etc. than those of your opponent. If one team does this and the other doesn’t, then the former is far more likely to win the round.
To be persuasive, you should be honest about how the debate has progressed. I grow tired of debaters who insist that they are somehow winning every argument. Admit your own weaknesses and recognize the strengths of your opponents - it makes you seem more credible.
I think defense is the most underutilized tool in debate. Debaters tend to focus too much on their impact and not nearly enough on how / whether it is accessed.
I don’t allow parli teams to split the block. The LOR does not need to extend arguments line-by-line from the MO, but should primarily concern themselves with argument / position comparison, not the creation of new arguments.
Other:
Presumption is toward less change relative to the status quo.
I don’t mind if you use the beginning of your speech time as prep time – it’s your time to do with as you wish. If you choose to do this, I’ll stop time mid-speech while you give your roadmap before you resume the remainder of your “speech” (because roadmaps aren’t timed anyways).
I think that death negates personhood. I don’t think that forcing people to make choices is an internal link to dehumanization. In fact, decision-making is probably central to our humanity.
RVIs are for people who cannot debate and for judges who cannot think.
Have fun. That’s ultimately why we’re all here.