Farva
11-09-11, 12:01 AM
Kristine asked me to post this. Whoever can, please delete the old one.
Kristine Clancy - Pepperdine University
I competed for Long Beach for two years in policy debate and two years*
in parliamentary debate, thus my views are heavily influenced by both*
types of debate.
Essentially my philosophy is more work for you and less work for me. I*
expect that issues have impacts (global warming and economic collapse*
are not impacts – I don’t know why those things are bad) and that at*
the end of the debate you tell me how things weigh out comparing both*
magnitude and risk (yes extinction is a very big impact, but it is not*
very likely). Write my ballot for me, and be honest in your*
assessment, you are not winning every argument in the debate round so*
weigh things accordingly.
If the debate does not involve a policy discussion then this task is*
much harder and you must have a clear criterion to evaluate all the*
different arguments in the round. I don’t know what is more important*
rights or security, so you had better have a way for me to figure it*
out, or in the end I can promise you will not like the way that I work*
it out.
A word of caution about theory, if you don’t know it or understand it,*
then don’t use it. Permutations must have a text, “do both” is not a*
text. The opposition is going to argue that the two are mutually*
exclusive so in order to demonstrate that they are not, you must*
provide an argument, you don’t just get to say they can. In terms of*
topicality, this argument is different than others in the debate*
because you are asking me to punish the other team and ignore all of*
the arguments they have made in the debate. I won’t do that by voting*
on topicality unless there is articulated in-round abuse. If the*
opposition runs topicality and doesn’t even make abuse a voter than*
the MG should have a very quick time with the argument. I will vote on*
a critical reason to prefer. Finally, most of the spec arguments*
floating around these days are garbage. I don’t believe you actually*
needed that information for your strategy, I think this is your*
strategy, and it is a terrible one. First, you must demonstrate that*
you want the information by asking a POI. If they do not answer or do*
not provide information that I should reasonably expect in a plan then*
run the spec (really vagueness) to protect your ground, otherwise slow*
down and leave the time suck out of the debate.
I am fine with critical arguments made by either team in the debate. I*
think your arguments generally need to be consistent with each other*
and critical arguments are no different. If your arguments are*
inconsistent it means you are missing the big picture in the debate*
and how the arguments relate to one another. You need to tell me why*
my vote is important and “the ballot as a tool” is getting old and I*
don’t generally like to reject things. Finally, if you are making a*
critical argument you need to make sure your link and impact operate*
on the same level. I am tired of hearing pre-fiat links and post-fiat*
impacts on critical positions. If fiat is illusory then you don’t get*
access to impacts outside of the debate round…and if you do, then so*
does the other team. For the last time, my ballot is not going to tear*
down capitalism!
Kristine Clancy - Pepperdine University
I competed for Long Beach for two years in policy debate and two years*
in parliamentary debate, thus my views are heavily influenced by both*
types of debate.
Essentially my philosophy is more work for you and less work for me. I*
expect that issues have impacts (global warming and economic collapse*
are not impacts – I don’t know why those things are bad) and that at*
the end of the debate you tell me how things weigh out comparing both*
magnitude and risk (yes extinction is a very big impact, but it is not*
very likely). Write my ballot for me, and be honest in your*
assessment, you are not winning every argument in the debate round so*
weigh things accordingly.
If the debate does not involve a policy discussion then this task is*
much harder and you must have a clear criterion to evaluate all the*
different arguments in the round. I don’t know what is more important*
rights or security, so you had better have a way for me to figure it*
out, or in the end I can promise you will not like the way that I work*
it out.
A word of caution about theory, if you don’t know it or understand it,*
then don’t use it. Permutations must have a text, “do both” is not a*
text. The opposition is going to argue that the two are mutually*
exclusive so in order to demonstrate that they are not, you must*
provide an argument, you don’t just get to say they can. In terms of*
topicality, this argument is different than others in the debate*
because you are asking me to punish the other team and ignore all of*
the arguments they have made in the debate. I won’t do that by voting*
on topicality unless there is articulated in-round abuse. If the*
opposition runs topicality and doesn’t even make abuse a voter than*
the MG should have a very quick time with the argument. I will vote on*
a critical reason to prefer. Finally, most of the spec arguments*
floating around these days are garbage. I don’t believe you actually*
needed that information for your strategy, I think this is your*
strategy, and it is a terrible one. First, you must demonstrate that*
you want the information by asking a POI. If they do not answer or do*
not provide information that I should reasonably expect in a plan then*
run the spec (really vagueness) to protect your ground, otherwise slow*
down and leave the time suck out of the debate.
I am fine with critical arguments made by either team in the debate. I*
think your arguments generally need to be consistent with each other*
and critical arguments are no different. If your arguments are*
inconsistent it means you are missing the big picture in the debate*
and how the arguments relate to one another. You need to tell me why*
my vote is important and “the ballot as a tool” is getting old and I*
don’t generally like to reject things. Finally, if you are making a*
critical argument you need to make sure your link and impact operate*
on the same level. I am tired of hearing pre-fiat links and post-fiat*
impacts on critical positions. If fiat is illusory then you don’t get*
access to impacts outside of the debate round…and if you do, then so*
does the other team. For the last time, my ballot is not going to tear*
down capitalism!