APotter
09-17-11, 08:56 AM
For those of you who were waiting on the edge of your seat with bated breath. Here is the judging philosophy for Tim Brooks
Background:
I debate policy debate for four years in high school. I debated parliamentary debate for three years in college. I took one year off to coach for .5 years and study abroad for .5 years
General:
I default to viewing debate as a game framed through net benefits. I think that the affirmative team should explain a problem in with the status quo, propose a solution, and articulate how that solution improves on the status quo. I think that the negative team should either articulate that the affirmative’s solution makes the world worse or advocate for an alternative action that is an opportunity cost to the affirmative’s action.
I am open to hearing arguments that there is a different framework than net benefits through which I should be evaluating the round.
I am fine with a fast rate of delivery as long as it is manageable. Speaker points will go to the debaters that I think are making the most convincing arguments; not to the debaters that are the most eloquent speakers.
Theory:
I enjoyed debating theory as a debater. I am happy to hear it as a judge. I tend to think that you should provide an interpretation, a reason that the opposing team does not meet your interpretation, justify your interpretation as a good one, and impact the act of not meeting your interpretation.
I need a story for why your impacts matter. I default to not needing in-round abuse. I am certainly happy to hear why there needs to be in-round abuse for my ballot. But I think the distinction between in-round and prep abuse is more ambiguous than most think.
I think that the argument of “reasonability” tends to be misused. I think that if the defensive team wins that I should be viewing that round through a framework of “reasonability,” but does not respond effectively to the offensive team’s reasons to prefer and impact story, it is unlikely that the defensive team’s interpretation is “reasonable.”
Here are my biases (although I will listen to any argument): I tend to think that conditional CPs are bad; delay CPs are bad; object fiat CP are very, very bad; CPs that change the process of normal means are bad; and topical CP are not bad. When I say CPs that change the process of normal means, I am referring to specifying votes, numbers of votes, method the plan is passed, etc; not CPs that change the actor.
Kritiks
I rarely ran kritiks as a debater. They were not my strength. I will listen to them though. However, I believe that my quality as a judge will decline somewhat, due to my discomfort with them.
I also don’t think that prefiat (whatever that means) is a framework for anything other than kritiks of offensive rhetoric by the opposing team. I don’t understand why I should evaluate the impacts of securitization before I evaluate the impacts of a plan that participates in securitization. I think that arguments about why I should disregard a plan’s advantages are more of solvency arguments regarding the plan’s methodology. Not simply which comes first.
Background:
I debate policy debate for four years in high school. I debated parliamentary debate for three years in college. I took one year off to coach for .5 years and study abroad for .5 years
General:
I default to viewing debate as a game framed through net benefits. I think that the affirmative team should explain a problem in with the status quo, propose a solution, and articulate how that solution improves on the status quo. I think that the negative team should either articulate that the affirmative’s solution makes the world worse or advocate for an alternative action that is an opportunity cost to the affirmative’s action.
I am open to hearing arguments that there is a different framework than net benefits through which I should be evaluating the round.
I am fine with a fast rate of delivery as long as it is manageable. Speaker points will go to the debaters that I think are making the most convincing arguments; not to the debaters that are the most eloquent speakers.
Theory:
I enjoyed debating theory as a debater. I am happy to hear it as a judge. I tend to think that you should provide an interpretation, a reason that the opposing team does not meet your interpretation, justify your interpretation as a good one, and impact the act of not meeting your interpretation.
I need a story for why your impacts matter. I default to not needing in-round abuse. I am certainly happy to hear why there needs to be in-round abuse for my ballot. But I think the distinction between in-round and prep abuse is more ambiguous than most think.
I think that the argument of “reasonability” tends to be misused. I think that if the defensive team wins that I should be viewing that round through a framework of “reasonability,” but does not respond effectively to the offensive team’s reasons to prefer and impact story, it is unlikely that the defensive team’s interpretation is “reasonable.”
Here are my biases (although I will listen to any argument): I tend to think that conditional CPs are bad; delay CPs are bad; object fiat CP are very, very bad; CPs that change the process of normal means are bad; and topical CP are not bad. When I say CPs that change the process of normal means, I am referring to specifying votes, numbers of votes, method the plan is passed, etc; not CPs that change the actor.
Kritiks
I rarely ran kritiks as a debater. They were not my strength. I will listen to them though. However, I believe that my quality as a judge will decline somewhat, due to my discomfort with them.
I also don’t think that prefiat (whatever that means) is a framework for anything other than kritiks of offensive rhetoric by the opposing team. I don’t understand why I should evaluate the impacts of securitization before I evaluate the impacts of a plan that participates in securitization. I think that arguments about why I should disregard a plan’s advantages are more of solvency arguments regarding the plan’s methodology. Not simply which comes first.