omega_debate
10-30-11, 07:31 PM
Steve Farias – Southern Illinois University
In General: Go ahead and run whatever you like. A great critical debate is a debate I love to listen to; however, I also love listening to hegemony debates. Indeed, I love freedom. Ultimately, the arguments you want to make are the arguments I expect you to defend and WEIGH. As a caveat, this does not mean the ONLY debates I want to hear are debates with critical/hegemonic impacts. Moreover, I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war these days when the topic is about education, a singular SCOTUS decision, immigration, etc. I think debaters would be much better served trying to win my ballot with topically intuitive impact scenarios rather than racing to nuclear war, ESPECIALLY IF PROBABILITY MEANS ANYTHING BEDIES A DROPPED, BLIPPED INTERNAL LINK—which I think it does. This leads me to my two other considerations: unwarranted blips and weighing. My stance on blips is on nerd-benefits but Ill make it brief here- I do my best to keep up with the debate and flow every argument (I even went back to paper and pen in fast rounds because I think it is easier to insert and keep up by hand than rely on Microsoft excel). However, I also will not stress if your 5 uniqueness blips don’t ALL get on my flow. So please do your best to use words like “because” followed by a strong logical basis for your claim and I will do my best to follow every argument. On weighing- I like great impact stories that have multiple scenarios, however magnitude seems to have take de-facto prioritization in debates. PLEASE USE TIMEFRAME (including cyclical and systemic versus immediate impacts) AND PROBABILITY (including most likely, highest chance be systemic versus one time, least likely). Overall, I think that the two biggest problems I have in judging debates is that there are often many unwarranted claims that end up becoming key issues in a debate round and there seems to be a lack of comparison sometimes at the impact level. Please explain to me 1) why your argument is true and 2) why YOUR impact is more important than THEIR impact. That prevents me from having to do any work. If you have specific questions on positions see below.
On Etiquette: 1) IMPORTANT: don’t lie in your rounds (like uniqueness on politics!). It is poor form and makes me look stupid for trusting the information debaters use in round to discuss real world issues. If I find that I am lied to in a round, I will let you know but should probably not be a high pref in the future for you. 2) IMPORTANT: Same goes for cursing, I don’t think it is necessary and while it will not lose any round in front of me (as lying might in the future rounds) I would appreciate if you expanded your suasory vocabulary passed curse words. 3) Try your best to not exclude another team in the round. This doesn’t mean debate easier, it simply means that there is no need blitzing the 2AC if the LOC CLEARLY just cannot keep up, and feel free to sit down instead of beating a dead horse. I will probably give more speaker points.
On T: I tend to see topicality in terms of abuse. I honestly believe there must be proven abuse in round if you are going to argue about ground and fairness, however I will vote on unanswered ground standards. I also believe that it is a game of competing interpretations in so far as I believe that both teams must defend an interpretation in order for T to become a wash. Sometimes I think that the neg allows the aff two interpretations (context of case and CI) but with that said, I also think that T is up for debate. So again, actual ground loss or a comparison of the standards will be necessary after that for me to vote on topicality. As for FX: I tend to think FX is easily answered but too often dropped. Answer it and it shouldn’t matter. On Extra: Ditto here. Answer it and it shouldn’t matter. Final note to the Opp: In no way am I saying I do not think you should run topicality or other procedurals, I just tend to see that I do not often vote on it. I see it as a great strategic tool and a position that can be gone for if necessary.
On CP: CP’s are the best strategy, IMHO, for any neg team (or at least some alternative advocacy). It is the best way to force an affirmative to defend their case. PICs, Delay, Consult, Micro, Macro, etc. whatever you want to run I am okay with. I do not think that We Bite Less is a compelling argument, just do not link to your own disad. Finally, the perm is not an advocacy UNLESS YOU SAY you advocate it and then explain why that is legitimate.
On K: I think that K’s without alternatives are just non-unique disads. I think that reject and embrace are not alternatives in and of themselves, I must reject or embrace something and then you must explain how that solves. In my opinion, procedurals in the MG make the debate really hard to adjudicate but if a team does it well I will still vote on them.
On RVIs: Just answer it and we will be fine. If a team really wants to go for an RVI, I will need multiple warranted reasons to vote there.
If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks.
In General: Go ahead and run whatever you like. A great critical debate is a debate I love to listen to; however, I also love listening to hegemony debates. Indeed, I love freedom. Ultimately, the arguments you want to make are the arguments I expect you to defend and WEIGH. As a caveat, this does not mean the ONLY debates I want to hear are debates with critical/hegemonic impacts. Moreover, I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war these days when the topic is about education, a singular SCOTUS decision, immigration, etc. I think debaters would be much better served trying to win my ballot with topically intuitive impact scenarios rather than racing to nuclear war, ESPECIALLY IF PROBABILITY MEANS ANYTHING BEDIES A DROPPED, BLIPPED INTERNAL LINK—which I think it does. This leads me to my two other considerations: unwarranted blips and weighing. My stance on blips is on nerd-benefits but Ill make it brief here- I do my best to keep up with the debate and flow every argument (I even went back to paper and pen in fast rounds because I think it is easier to insert and keep up by hand than rely on Microsoft excel). However, I also will not stress if your 5 uniqueness blips don’t ALL get on my flow. So please do your best to use words like “because” followed by a strong logical basis for your claim and I will do my best to follow every argument. On weighing- I like great impact stories that have multiple scenarios, however magnitude seems to have take de-facto prioritization in debates. PLEASE USE TIMEFRAME (including cyclical and systemic versus immediate impacts) AND PROBABILITY (including most likely, highest chance be systemic versus one time, least likely). Overall, I think that the two biggest problems I have in judging debates is that there are often many unwarranted claims that end up becoming key issues in a debate round and there seems to be a lack of comparison sometimes at the impact level. Please explain to me 1) why your argument is true and 2) why YOUR impact is more important than THEIR impact. That prevents me from having to do any work. If you have specific questions on positions see below.
On Etiquette: 1) IMPORTANT: don’t lie in your rounds (like uniqueness on politics!). It is poor form and makes me look stupid for trusting the information debaters use in round to discuss real world issues. If I find that I am lied to in a round, I will let you know but should probably not be a high pref in the future for you. 2) IMPORTANT: Same goes for cursing, I don’t think it is necessary and while it will not lose any round in front of me (as lying might in the future rounds) I would appreciate if you expanded your suasory vocabulary passed curse words. 3) Try your best to not exclude another team in the round. This doesn’t mean debate easier, it simply means that there is no need blitzing the 2AC if the LOC CLEARLY just cannot keep up, and feel free to sit down instead of beating a dead horse. I will probably give more speaker points.
On T: I tend to see topicality in terms of abuse. I honestly believe there must be proven abuse in round if you are going to argue about ground and fairness, however I will vote on unanswered ground standards. I also believe that it is a game of competing interpretations in so far as I believe that both teams must defend an interpretation in order for T to become a wash. Sometimes I think that the neg allows the aff two interpretations (context of case and CI) but with that said, I also think that T is up for debate. So again, actual ground loss or a comparison of the standards will be necessary after that for me to vote on topicality. As for FX: I tend to think FX is easily answered but too often dropped. Answer it and it shouldn’t matter. On Extra: Ditto here. Answer it and it shouldn’t matter. Final note to the Opp: In no way am I saying I do not think you should run topicality or other procedurals, I just tend to see that I do not often vote on it. I see it as a great strategic tool and a position that can be gone for if necessary.
On CP: CP’s are the best strategy, IMHO, for any neg team (or at least some alternative advocacy). It is the best way to force an affirmative to defend their case. PICs, Delay, Consult, Micro, Macro, etc. whatever you want to run I am okay with. I do not think that We Bite Less is a compelling argument, just do not link to your own disad. Finally, the perm is not an advocacy UNLESS YOU SAY you advocate it and then explain why that is legitimate.
On K: I think that K’s without alternatives are just non-unique disads. I think that reject and embrace are not alternatives in and of themselves, I must reject or embrace something and then you must explain how that solves. In my opinion, procedurals in the MG make the debate really hard to adjudicate but if a team does it well I will still vote on them.
On RVIs: Just answer it and we will be fine. If a team really wants to go for an RVI, I will need multiple warranted reasons to vote there.
If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks.