Zach Tschida
09-15-11, 02:32 PM
Zach Tschida Judge Philosophy
Background:
“Has my reputation preceded me, or was I too quick for it?”
-Zapp Brannigan
Hey everybody thanks for reading. My name is Zach; I competed in parli debate for four years at the University of Puget Sound and will be coaching the UPS team this year. In general, I intend for this judge philosophy to convey the ways I perceive debate broadly while indicating some particularities specific to how I evaluate debate.
I hope this philosophy proves useful, and questions are always welcome.
General information: My Disposition and Preferences
As a rule, I appreciate debates and debaters that exhibit:
1. Nuance. I enjoy nuanced strategies, nuanced execution, and nuanced comparison between arguments (both in terms of line-by-line on each position and between different arguments). Ultimately, I am more persuaded by arguments that present a nuance that complicates the way the other team has portrayed the world.
2. A clear distillation of complex thoughts. As a rule, I believe that a speaker’s ability to convey and explain an argument is indicative of their understanding of that argument. Consequently, I think that a successful debater should be able to simplify potentially convoluted ideas in a manner that resonates with the audience.
3. Humor and civility. It is refreshing to see a debate that reminds me that this is a collegial activity in which all participants dedicate a significant amount of time and effort.
My most fundamental belief about debate is that, at least in terms of what arguments ‘should’ be available to each team, access to theory allows debate to be self-correcting. As a result, I do not believe that any type of argument is inherently prohibited. Of course, I lean in particular directions on various theoretical issues (to be discussed below). Since I am uncomfortable with ignoring any argument simply on principle, I think it is incumbent upon each team to present any objection to their opponents’ argument selection. Because I think theory has the power to correct imbalances in debate, I am always willing to adjust my predispositions to the particular debate.
I am committed to giving equal weight to all types of arguments, but nonetheless I find myself enjoying debates (that I watch and that I competed in) that were oriented around Kritiks and Theory due to my own personal interests. I do not wish to encourage you to alter your strategy in favor of my preferences, although I realize this is somewhat inevitable. The three considerations I listed above are my priorities, and therefore if you enjoy debating a politics DA, for example, then I would much rather watch that debate because you will likely be able to present your favored arguments in a more nuanced and persuasive manner. As Kanye once insightfully commented, “Old folks talkin ‘back in my day’ / But homey this is MY day,” and indeed it is your day! So make the arguments that are most interesting and strategic from your perspective.
In terms of speaker points, it is hard for me to make a prediction, but I anticipate my range will be 27-29. I base speaker points on the elements mentioned above and I prioritize rewarding strategic decisions and clean execution of those strategies.
As for speed, in my experience I do not encounter difficulty keeping up with parli speed. I will take it upon myself to let you know if there are any problems related with speed/clarity of delivery for the sake of allowing you to adjust and get more of your arguments on my flow.
Specific issues:
Theory –
Theory for me is not about ‘abuse.’ Consequently evaluating a theory debate is not a matter of determining if a team’s actions have reached a particular threshold of egregiousness that makes competition impossible. As my favorite theory argument, which I first read from an old Whitman theory file, goes: ‘Debate at its hardest is debate at its best.’ (Please don’t seriously bank on this argument)
Really, I find that it would be more difficult for me to determine ‘abuse.’
Therefore, I prefer to evaluate theory in the same manner that I evaluate all debate arguments: in terms of net-benefits. My understanding of ‘competing interpretations’ is that I should support the interpretation that most closely approximates the best model of debate, just as I should vote for the advocacy that would most significantly improve society.
I enjoy theory debates that are well contextualized and thoughtful.
I do not prefer generic theory debates like Spec, but even in some circumstances I think these positions possess some strategic utility.
I am not generally persuaded by Reasonability, but only because my experience is that the threshold for what is ‘reasonable’ tends to be arbitrary, and hence I default to a framework of competing interpretations.
In terms of CP theory, I err in favor of conditionality but I think there is a limit (probably one conditional advocacy and the status quo) at which it can detract from thoughtful debate. Nonetheless, I will entertain negative strategies that include multiple conditional advocacies; this is particularly true if one of the advocacies is a Kritik because I interpret the Kritik as typically a methodological indictment that operates on a different level than a CP.
If your MO/LOR strategy includes a CP or other advocacy that was originally identified as conditional, I will not evaluate the world of the status quo unless I am explicitly told otherwise.
PICs are generally legitimate, but I do find the theory against some subsets of CPs to be pretty compelling. For example, I am typically persuaded by theory against delay and consult CPs.
CPs
CPs are an indispensable component of a negative strategy and I am impressed by teams that successfully execute CP v. Plan debates.
Although generic CPs (such as Agent CPs) can be useful, I really appreciate CPs that are specific to case. I admire CPs that indicate a team’s dedication to research.
Furthermore, I enjoy watching Advantage CP debates.
Kritiks
As I mentioned, I enjoy Kritik debates but I do not appreciate all Kritiks equally. In general, I would not say I am ‘well-read’ on all of the literature, but I would say that I have a decent understanding of most issues. I majored in Economics and Political Theory, and consequently I am most familiar with Kritiks related to those fields – but I always enjoy hearing arguments that are novel to me.
I think K Affs are acceptable and, if deployed well, can provide thoughtful insight specific to the topic. As I said, nothing is ‘off the table,’ so I do not automatically bind Affirmatives to presenting a topical plan text.
However, because most Kritiks fundamentally argue that we should be responsible for our rhetorical/discursive/methodological choices, I think this places a reciprocal burden on teams advocating Kritiks to defend their choices. In this sense, if you read a plan text, I think you are responsible for defending it; if you do not read a plan text, I think you are still responsible for defending a stable and well-articulated advocacy.
In terms of framework, I do not really appreciate frameworks that seek to inflate the relevance of the Kritik by excluding the Affirmative. On this level of the framework debate, I am typically compelled by the race-to-the-middle in which the affirmative has access to their advantages (or the negative’s DAs, in the case of a K Aff) and the negative also has access to its K impacts.
I think Kritiks are extremely relevant as a means for presenting an explanatory framework for evaluating the world / the advocacy of the affirmative in a manner that deviates from the framework assumed by the other team. Ultimately, Kritiks do not exclude other impacts, but rather provide a specific mechanism for evaluating and prioritizing different types of impact claims.
Background:
“Has my reputation preceded me, or was I too quick for it?”
-Zapp Brannigan
Hey everybody thanks for reading. My name is Zach; I competed in parli debate for four years at the University of Puget Sound and will be coaching the UPS team this year. In general, I intend for this judge philosophy to convey the ways I perceive debate broadly while indicating some particularities specific to how I evaluate debate.
I hope this philosophy proves useful, and questions are always welcome.
General information: My Disposition and Preferences
As a rule, I appreciate debates and debaters that exhibit:
1. Nuance. I enjoy nuanced strategies, nuanced execution, and nuanced comparison between arguments (both in terms of line-by-line on each position and between different arguments). Ultimately, I am more persuaded by arguments that present a nuance that complicates the way the other team has portrayed the world.
2. A clear distillation of complex thoughts. As a rule, I believe that a speaker’s ability to convey and explain an argument is indicative of their understanding of that argument. Consequently, I think that a successful debater should be able to simplify potentially convoluted ideas in a manner that resonates with the audience.
3. Humor and civility. It is refreshing to see a debate that reminds me that this is a collegial activity in which all participants dedicate a significant amount of time and effort.
My most fundamental belief about debate is that, at least in terms of what arguments ‘should’ be available to each team, access to theory allows debate to be self-correcting. As a result, I do not believe that any type of argument is inherently prohibited. Of course, I lean in particular directions on various theoretical issues (to be discussed below). Since I am uncomfortable with ignoring any argument simply on principle, I think it is incumbent upon each team to present any objection to their opponents’ argument selection. Because I think theory has the power to correct imbalances in debate, I am always willing to adjust my predispositions to the particular debate.
I am committed to giving equal weight to all types of arguments, but nonetheless I find myself enjoying debates (that I watch and that I competed in) that were oriented around Kritiks and Theory due to my own personal interests. I do not wish to encourage you to alter your strategy in favor of my preferences, although I realize this is somewhat inevitable. The three considerations I listed above are my priorities, and therefore if you enjoy debating a politics DA, for example, then I would much rather watch that debate because you will likely be able to present your favored arguments in a more nuanced and persuasive manner. As Kanye once insightfully commented, “Old folks talkin ‘back in my day’ / But homey this is MY day,” and indeed it is your day! So make the arguments that are most interesting and strategic from your perspective.
In terms of speaker points, it is hard for me to make a prediction, but I anticipate my range will be 27-29. I base speaker points on the elements mentioned above and I prioritize rewarding strategic decisions and clean execution of those strategies.
As for speed, in my experience I do not encounter difficulty keeping up with parli speed. I will take it upon myself to let you know if there are any problems related with speed/clarity of delivery for the sake of allowing you to adjust and get more of your arguments on my flow.
Specific issues:
Theory –
Theory for me is not about ‘abuse.’ Consequently evaluating a theory debate is not a matter of determining if a team’s actions have reached a particular threshold of egregiousness that makes competition impossible. As my favorite theory argument, which I first read from an old Whitman theory file, goes: ‘Debate at its hardest is debate at its best.’ (Please don’t seriously bank on this argument)
Really, I find that it would be more difficult for me to determine ‘abuse.’
Therefore, I prefer to evaluate theory in the same manner that I evaluate all debate arguments: in terms of net-benefits. My understanding of ‘competing interpretations’ is that I should support the interpretation that most closely approximates the best model of debate, just as I should vote for the advocacy that would most significantly improve society.
I enjoy theory debates that are well contextualized and thoughtful.
I do not prefer generic theory debates like Spec, but even in some circumstances I think these positions possess some strategic utility.
I am not generally persuaded by Reasonability, but only because my experience is that the threshold for what is ‘reasonable’ tends to be arbitrary, and hence I default to a framework of competing interpretations.
In terms of CP theory, I err in favor of conditionality but I think there is a limit (probably one conditional advocacy and the status quo) at which it can detract from thoughtful debate. Nonetheless, I will entertain negative strategies that include multiple conditional advocacies; this is particularly true if one of the advocacies is a Kritik because I interpret the Kritik as typically a methodological indictment that operates on a different level than a CP.
If your MO/LOR strategy includes a CP or other advocacy that was originally identified as conditional, I will not evaluate the world of the status quo unless I am explicitly told otherwise.
PICs are generally legitimate, but I do find the theory against some subsets of CPs to be pretty compelling. For example, I am typically persuaded by theory against delay and consult CPs.
CPs
CPs are an indispensable component of a negative strategy and I am impressed by teams that successfully execute CP v. Plan debates.
Although generic CPs (such as Agent CPs) can be useful, I really appreciate CPs that are specific to case. I admire CPs that indicate a team’s dedication to research.
Furthermore, I enjoy watching Advantage CP debates.
Kritiks
As I mentioned, I enjoy Kritik debates but I do not appreciate all Kritiks equally. In general, I would not say I am ‘well-read’ on all of the literature, but I would say that I have a decent understanding of most issues. I majored in Economics and Political Theory, and consequently I am most familiar with Kritiks related to those fields – but I always enjoy hearing arguments that are novel to me.
I think K Affs are acceptable and, if deployed well, can provide thoughtful insight specific to the topic. As I said, nothing is ‘off the table,’ so I do not automatically bind Affirmatives to presenting a topical plan text.
However, because most Kritiks fundamentally argue that we should be responsible for our rhetorical/discursive/methodological choices, I think this places a reciprocal burden on teams advocating Kritiks to defend their choices. In this sense, if you read a plan text, I think you are responsible for defending it; if you do not read a plan text, I think you are still responsible for defending a stable and well-articulated advocacy.
In terms of framework, I do not really appreciate frameworks that seek to inflate the relevance of the Kritik by excluding the Affirmative. On this level of the framework debate, I am typically compelled by the race-to-the-middle in which the affirmative has access to their advantages (or the negative’s DAs, in the case of a K Aff) and the negative also has access to its K impacts.
I think Kritiks are extremely relevant as a means for presenting an explanatory framework for evaluating the world / the advocacy of the affirmative in a manner that deviates from the framework assumed by the other team. Ultimately, Kritiks do not exclude other impacts, but rather provide a specific mechanism for evaluating and prioritizing different types of impact claims.