Because I'm recently out of retirement, my philosophy is always evolving slightly. Latest changes in red.
How to win my ballot in NPDA.
by Charles Kincy
affiliated school: Bellevue (WA) College
(1) FRAME CONTROL IS THE NAME OF THE GAME. You’re not reading cards, so you need to project rhetorical confidence and power. You must not only tell me what issues are more important in the round, but you must do this at the end of every speech (perhaps with the exception of PMC, which should be self-evident). 80% of my ballots have been decided on this issue, often by halfway through the MO speech.
(2) ESTABLISH THE FRAMEWORK BY STATING IT EXPLICITLY. This is easy--say “value is X, criteria is Y” or something similar. Opposition teams can either accept the framework and show why we should reject the topic OR provide a counter-framework and show why it is better.
(3) IN REBUTTALS, ALWAYS ANALYZE CLASH OF FRAMEWORK OR IMPACTS. The easiest way to do this in the rebuttal is to crystallize the framework or impacts and say “we said this, they said that, we win because such and so.” If you need an explanatory overview, go for it. All else being equal, this will win you the round if the other team flubs it.
(4) OFFENSE IS BETTER THAN DEFENSE. And terminal D just doesn’t work! If you don’t go on offense, you won’t be able to weigh impacts. Further, you’re not reading cards, so standing for something is simply more persuasive than standing against your opponent. While I don't believe the policy debate notion of "presumption" applies to Parli, I will not vote Gov unless Gov has at least some surviving offense, which has the same effect as presumption.
(5a) THEORY & KRITIK DO NOT STAND ON THEIR OWN... You must demonstrate how the theoretical, procedural, or kritikal implications of your argument block access to your opponents’ impacts.
(5b) ...BUT I'M MORE LIKELY TO TOLERATE THE WEIRD IN ROUNDS WITH AWFUL TOPICS. If I feel the standard approach to your side of a topic is likely to force you to argue something absurd or offensive, I will give you a larger amount of latitude for nonstandard approaches. (Even though I will always intervene like this if I am aware of the imbalance, it's safer to point out to me that this principle should be in play.) A recent example is "USFGS mandate that blood donors cannot be discriminated against based on sexual orientation." Opposition teams are in the uncomfortable position of either advocating for discrimination or bad science if they are forced into the policymaker framework. K's and politics DAs are really the only ground they have, so I'm giving them a lot more weight.
(6) SPEED DOESN’T KILL, BUT IT PROBABLY DOESN’T HELP. I’m probably about twice your age and don’t follow things nearly as well as I used to. A well-developed single argument wins against eight blippy and hard-to-follow ones. I’ll do the best I can, but it works better for all of us if you save your breath and show some quality of thought.
(7) IF I HAVE TO, I WILL “GOOGLE IT”. I won’t entertain arguments that are patently absurd just because they are theoretically proper, and if the round comes down to a factual dispute, I will do as much research as I can in 5 minutes. If that doesn’t resolve it, I will consider the argument a wash. If that absolutely hangs the round, I’ll vote Opp.
(8) DON’T BE A DICK. This is also known as the “Wil Wheaton” rule and I enforce it brutally.
(9) YOU HAVE QUESTIONS?
Seriously, you worry way too much about these things, but hell, all the cool kids are doing it....
Speaks. I use something close to the last NPTE rubric. You start with 27.5 and depart from there in 0.5 increments. You won’t go more than +/- 1.5 from there unless something highly unusual has happened. In restricted divisions, these numbers measure your progress against the progress I expect from developing debaters.
If you are in a restricted division, you should stick to the impact debate rather than getting fancy, unless you know what you’re doing and you know your opponents can keep up.
Trichotomy is a tool for analyzing a topic and not an ironclad rule. Nearly all topics in the Pacific NW could be construed as a policy topic at least by way of example. Conversely, a topic without a suggested actor and clear policy goal does NOT require a plan. I will entertain planless affirmative cases (eg, kritikal affs or "value" interpretations) if you spend some effort justifying your topic analysis.
Since Parli topics do not contain the word "resolved", we should probably stop saying the phrase "resolutional analysis".
Counterplans.
1. I prefer functional to textual competition.
2. Permutations are tests of competition.
3. Plan-inclusive counterplans are UNCOOL unless part of a comprehensive block of Ks/DAs linking in the harms of doing it the gov’s way.
4. Except for “do both”, permutation text must be explicit.
Kritiks.
1. Bad idea on Gov unless topical.
2. Opp must show an alternative, or I will vote perms rather uncritically.
3. As above, perm text must be explicit except for “do both.”
4. You’re best off considering a K as a DA without uniqueness. Thus you must impact accordingly AND provide an alternative.
Conditionality must be part of a comprehensive strategy. Don’t do “spread and kick,” that’s lame. If you want to kick something, kick everything linked to the strategy. If you don’t resolve contradictions, I’ll let your opponent choose a position to kick.
Topicality.
1. Stock arguments are stupid. The point of topicality arguments is that debate is pointless without a topic. It’s equally pointless to argue topicality every round.
2. I’ll entertain reverse voting issues in the case of serious abusiveness. I won’t penalize you for offering them but you should not go “all-in” on them.
3. Effective T arguments contain: standards, violations, and why I should vote T. If you don’t have all three I won’t evaluate it.
Specifications must demonstrate why the lack of specification blocks access to gov impacts. Otherwise, they will be dead weight in the round. Unlike T, specs should not argue abuse.
Stock DAs (such as “politics,” “heg”) are stupid unless clearly part of a rollback scenario (ie, political backlash changes a policy that neutralizes gov). They are stupid primarily because the link story is non-unique but for a facile brink analysis. I won’t intervene as such, but I’m likely to find your impact calculus utterly absurd.
PMR Privilege and “Golden Turns.” Since the opposition has no chance to respond, I will intervene to determine if your latitude is warranted. Thus, seriously consider whether it’s a great idea to go “all-in” on these. If you had no other chance to win, though, you might as well....
When I have to intervene.
* Theory blocks everything.
* Procedurals block kritiks & policy impacts.
* Kritiks block policy impacts. However, you can evade a K's a-priori status by persuading me that embracing a K causes us to bite harms or other impacts--in which case I'll consider a K to be like a DA/SQ harms.
* All else equal, the concrete is more convincing than the abstract.
* Extinction is worse than dehumanization, and they’re both worse than being broke. But a thousand people dehumanized is worse than one person dead, and a million people broke is worse than both.
* “Everything” is stronger than “something.”
* “Likely” is stronger than “maybe.”
* Benefits accruing immediately outweigh equal harms later (and vice versa).
* The incorporating effect is more interesting than the incorporated effect.
* The causal agent is more interesting than the caused effect.
I wrote all this mostly to keep my own story straight and hold myself accountable to a stable philosophy, not to overwhelm you with a wall of text.
vBulletin® v3.6.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.