Jeffro
08-22-11, 06:54 PM
Section 1: General Information
Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear. Judges who write philosophies that are not clear will be asked to rewrite them. Judges who do not rewrite them may be fined or not allowed to judge/cover teams at the NPTE.
It should be of no surprise that I prefer to see debates that are somewhat similar to the way I debated. Fundamentally, I believe the most fair, productive, educational and fun debates occur when the affirmative defends the imagined implementation of a topical plan text and the negative defends the status quo or a competitive policy option. Debate is an intellectual game based on your ability to creatively and persuasively advance claims and warrants, and you should do that advancing in whichever way you're most comfortable with, but know that if your fundamental strategy differs significantly from the above (instances where you're going for a procedural aside) I will be predisposed to being skeptical of it.
Section 2: Specific Inquiries
Please describe your approach to the following.
1. 1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given.
26-~29. Less than 26 indicates a performance that I feel is insufficient for being competitive in the division you're competing in, or extreme instances of partner/opponent/me abuse. I will reserve the right to punish inappropriate post-round behavior directed at myself, your opponents, or audience members via speaker points. Same goes for excessive thievery of prep time. More than 29 happens when I hear a speech and get jealous.
1. 2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?
As indicated above, I prefer debates based in a hypothetical, fiat based frame. Critical arguments are not without merit but I find that they are often deployed questionably. I think fairness probably is more important than critical education. I also think arguments like "representations are all that matter" are not fundamentally different enough from utopian or object fiat that I'm comfortable endorsing them.
1. 3. Performance based arguments…
Pass. If you're entertaining you'll get good speaks, but I'd rather not watch DI. It should be noted, however, that I don't think answering a performance by counter-performing is at all a compelling strategy. I once heard of a debate where the PMC advocated for silence and in response the LOC was...also silent. In that instance, why wouldn't I vote aff? They at least made and justified an argument.
1. 4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?
I like topicality debates. I like them a lot. I think debate is fun when it's games-y and I think procedurals can be a smart way of doing that. To vote on topicality, I require an interpretation with a net benefit that is not met by the other team. I do not believe any topicality argument has an inherently arbitrary interpretation; if the interpretation is arbitrary, you're going to be in trouble on the standards debate, and the point is moot. I believe topicality standards have impacts just like disads do, and I think people should weigh those standards accordingly. I do tend to believe that ultimately topicality is a question of access to the debate most accurately measured by ground, but do not believe you need to "prove in round abuse" to demonstrate ground loss. I do require a competitive interpretation, but am pretty persuaded by arguments indicating a given interpretation is perhaps not holistic or contextual and that logical combinations of interpretations exist. If that confuses you, I encourage you to ask me about it.
1. 5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?
PICs are smart assuming they create a logical, impacted net benefit. If the status of a counterplan is not identified in the shell, I will assume it is conditional. Counterplans must be functionally competitive and may also be textually competitive. I find the argument that there is a textually competitive version of a CP to be compelling in parli, given the lack of predictable, stable access to plan texts and the fact that almost every CP text has to be written in the ~5 minutes after the plan in the PMC.
1. 6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)
Acceptable but not compulsory. If you're standing over your opponent's shoulder while they read (though I don't know if anyone besides me did that last year) and they ask you to stop, you should stop.
1. 7. 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?)?
Procedurals are evaluated first, followed by impact level claims in order of magnitude, absent arguments to the contrary. Note that my gut reaction is that arguments why a criticism should automatically precede the affirmative strike me as bullshit-y, but if those arguments are not answered, I'm compelled to evaluate in that order. However, just because something is evaluated FIRST does not automatically make it more important. If your criticism merely makes claims to dehumanization, for example, and the aff solves for extinction, I am comfortable determining that dehum is bad but not bad enough to risk extinction.
1. 8. 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")?
See above. Perhaps terrifyingly, the person I agree with most on this question is Dane Anderson - a pile of bodies is probably good for you. My immediate reaction is to interrogate claims that "x" is the root cause of all violence, but a concession of that argument is usually devastating.
Other Things
There's absolutely no reason that this activity has to be hostile. There's every reason for this activity to be hard, and I like to reward debaters who do smart things in smart ways but also manage to enjoy what they're doing. I'm also of the school of thought that decisions that take a long time are decisions where too much work is being done by the critic, and so it should not alarm you when I decide quickly. I look down fiercely on prep time thieves and am likely to simply start the timer if I think you're being excessive, so tread lightly. Above all, I think debaters and judges alike have a duty to make sure the process is fair, fun, and open, so I encourage you to approach me with questions about anything in this philosophy or even decisions that are made. Approach me with candor and frankness, because I'm certain to respond in kind.
Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear. Judges who write philosophies that are not clear will be asked to rewrite them. Judges who do not rewrite them may be fined or not allowed to judge/cover teams at the NPTE.
It should be of no surprise that I prefer to see debates that are somewhat similar to the way I debated. Fundamentally, I believe the most fair, productive, educational and fun debates occur when the affirmative defends the imagined implementation of a topical plan text and the negative defends the status quo or a competitive policy option. Debate is an intellectual game based on your ability to creatively and persuasively advance claims and warrants, and you should do that advancing in whichever way you're most comfortable with, but know that if your fundamental strategy differs significantly from the above (instances where you're going for a procedural aside) I will be predisposed to being skeptical of it.
Section 2: Specific Inquiries
Please describe your approach to the following.
1. 1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given.
26-~29. Less than 26 indicates a performance that I feel is insufficient for being competitive in the division you're competing in, or extreme instances of partner/opponent/me abuse. I will reserve the right to punish inappropriate post-round behavior directed at myself, your opponents, or audience members via speaker points. Same goes for excessive thievery of prep time. More than 29 happens when I hear a speech and get jealous.
1. 2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?
As indicated above, I prefer debates based in a hypothetical, fiat based frame. Critical arguments are not without merit but I find that they are often deployed questionably. I think fairness probably is more important than critical education. I also think arguments like "representations are all that matter" are not fundamentally different enough from utopian or object fiat that I'm comfortable endorsing them.
1. 3. Performance based arguments…
Pass. If you're entertaining you'll get good speaks, but I'd rather not watch DI. It should be noted, however, that I don't think answering a performance by counter-performing is at all a compelling strategy. I once heard of a debate where the PMC advocated for silence and in response the LOC was...also silent. In that instance, why wouldn't I vote aff? They at least made and justified an argument.
1. 4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?
I like topicality debates. I like them a lot. I think debate is fun when it's games-y and I think procedurals can be a smart way of doing that. To vote on topicality, I require an interpretation with a net benefit that is not met by the other team. I do not believe any topicality argument has an inherently arbitrary interpretation; if the interpretation is arbitrary, you're going to be in trouble on the standards debate, and the point is moot. I believe topicality standards have impacts just like disads do, and I think people should weigh those standards accordingly. I do tend to believe that ultimately topicality is a question of access to the debate most accurately measured by ground, but do not believe you need to "prove in round abuse" to demonstrate ground loss. I do require a competitive interpretation, but am pretty persuaded by arguments indicating a given interpretation is perhaps not holistic or contextual and that logical combinations of interpretations exist. If that confuses you, I encourage you to ask me about it.
1. 5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?
PICs are smart assuming they create a logical, impacted net benefit. If the status of a counterplan is not identified in the shell, I will assume it is conditional. Counterplans must be functionally competitive and may also be textually competitive. I find the argument that there is a textually competitive version of a CP to be compelling in parli, given the lack of predictable, stable access to plan texts and the fact that almost every CP text has to be written in the ~5 minutes after the plan in the PMC.
1. 6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)
Acceptable but not compulsory. If you're standing over your opponent's shoulder while they read (though I don't know if anyone besides me did that last year) and they ask you to stop, you should stop.
1. 7. 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?)?
Procedurals are evaluated first, followed by impact level claims in order of magnitude, absent arguments to the contrary. Note that my gut reaction is that arguments why a criticism should automatically precede the affirmative strike me as bullshit-y, but if those arguments are not answered, I'm compelled to evaluate in that order. However, just because something is evaluated FIRST does not automatically make it more important. If your criticism merely makes claims to dehumanization, for example, and the aff solves for extinction, I am comfortable determining that dehum is bad but not bad enough to risk extinction.
1. 8. 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")?
See above. Perhaps terrifyingly, the person I agree with most on this question is Dane Anderson - a pile of bodies is probably good for you. My immediate reaction is to interrogate claims that "x" is the root cause of all violence, but a concession of that argument is usually devastating.
Other Things
There's absolutely no reason that this activity has to be hostile. There's every reason for this activity to be hard, and I like to reward debaters who do smart things in smart ways but also manage to enjoy what they're doing. I'm also of the school of thought that decisions that take a long time are decisions where too much work is being done by the critic, and so it should not alarm you when I decide quickly. I look down fiercely on prep time thieves and am likely to simply start the timer if I think you're being excessive, so tread lightly. Above all, I think debaters and judges alike have a duty to make sure the process is fair, fun, and open, so I encourage you to approach me with questions about anything in this philosophy or even decisions that are made. Approach me with candor and frankness, because I'm certain to respond in kind.