Ian Samuel

[kissmycls]

This is from the 2006 NPTE.

Ian Samuel
Azusa Pacific

Parli Debates judged this year: 20
Non-Parli Debates judged this year: 5 (NFA-LD)
Years Judging Debate: 5
Years Competed in Debate: 5
What School Competed at: South Carolina

Making Decisions: 'I have a set of default assumptions about debate a framework that I think is pretty close to community norms on most issues. I am willing to deviate from that framework if I am given reasons that another method or rule of adjudication is better. I view the "point" of this philosophy as to explain my default rules to you so that you can understand where I m coming from. It drove me insane when judges would write philosophies that pretended to be ultra neutral when in reality everyone has preferences. I hope you won t interpret this judging philosophy as "rules" for debate. It s not. It s just a set of default rules that if I need to I ll apply to make a clear decision.'

Decision-making Approach: 'Two teams one ballot. It s a game of comparisons. If your advocacy is more good/less bad than your opponents you win.'

Assessing Arguments: 'A good argument beats a weak argument but any argument beats no argument at all. Dropping a crappy defensive answer means your impact is mitigated a little bit; dropping a turn means you absorb some comparative offense. What does that mean? That is really what the rebuttals are for--explaining the result in ballot terms of the arguments that have been conceded or won in other ways. A tip for Gov teams: most of the time the block will concede a couple of answers on just about every position. Use the PMR to extend those and EXPLAIN why that means you are winning the position; then explain why winning that position means you win the debate. This is a far better use of your rebuttal time than turning it into "Constructives Part 3." Impact comparison throughout the debate is essential. If that is what is meant by "big picture" arguments then yes please. Particularly with debates involving both critique-type arguments and procedurals an explanation of which impact is more important for my ballot is important. Note also that I flow the warrants and explanation for arguments so if you want to structure those or refer to them specifically later I am cool with that. It also means I ll notice if you don t have warrants and are just hoping to put out a lot of short bad answers.'

Presentational Aspects: 'Speed is a factor in any timed competitive game says the great Tuna Snider. Obviously for strategic reasons you want to be able to outpace your opponents particularly in the LOC/MG so that you have more options later. As the debate progresses it helps you to narrow it so the function of speed in the last two speeches is much less than in the early ones. Racist or sexist language is a factor in speaker points and like all language is a valid target for language criticism. What constitutes those broad categories of "racist" and "sexist" is up to you to debate and decide.'

Strong Viewpoints: 'Debate ballots are not how I express myself politically; I have the real ballot box for that. I m actually sort of excited to re-enter an environment that is "safe" for all kinds of political arguments across the spectrum. People who complain about ideological homogeneity in debate are really kidding themselves. Debate is a contest of skill and I regularly vote for plenty of things that in the "real" world I think are bullshit. The presence of warrants and what Matt Stannard has called "the giving of reasons" makes this possible.'

Cases, DAs, CPs, Ks, T, etc.: 'Cases: I strongly prefer policy debates or at least rounds in which I can evaluate the merits of particular textual advocacy statements. ("Micro" cases etc. fall into this category since I can still compare status quo/post-microaction world.) Thus while you don t always need a plan I think it s impermissibly vague not to have a textual advocacy statement of some kind. Procedurals: All procedural arguments need four parts. You need to explain your interpretation of how a debate should happen how what the other team has done violates that conception why your conception is good (standards) and what the voting implications are. Beyond that structure which is mostly just to help me understand what you re saying I think you have a lot of freedom. I am happy to listen to and vote on procedural arguments of all "kinds" (T spec arguments various debates on the conditions and requirements of fiat etc.) so long as they are explained and done well. I do not think that the opposition is immune to procedural debates--if you want to run "alt vagueness" in response to a critique or A-spec in response to a counterplan go ahead. But it needs to be structured the same way as any other procedural claim because it still must show the same essential stuff. Disadvantages: No specific preferences. The more detail your scenarios have the better but as always it is a game of comparisons. I think the politics disad is a necessary tool for opposition teams a reciprocal grant of argumentative space in exchange for the government team s ability to advocate cases that in the "real" world would not happen. Counterplans: They don t need to be non-topical. They do need to be competitive. There is no such thing as mutual exclusivity so just worry about explaining why doing CP alone is better than (P + CP) or P alone. Like any other argument you can kick a counterplan subject to theory restrictions on why that is bad coming from the other side; also like any other argument kicking positions with unanswered offense is probably a bad idea. I think that agent counterplans consult exclusion CPs and so forth are necessary opposition tools but they are of course subject to theoretical objection by the Gov if you want. Critiques: More than any other argument these need to be explained because there are so few "settled" concepts of how they work in a debate. Explain to me why voting for the critique is better than voting for the plan and win that debate and I will do it. If you are the other team to win a critique debate just do the opposite: why is voting for the plan better than voting for the critique? Give reasons. I will listen and write. Then put the best reasons in the rebuttal.'

Other Items to Note: 'IF YOU ARE IN A HURRY AND I AM ABOUT TO JUDGE YOU JUST REMEMBER THIS: The team that does the better impact comparison is usually going to win the debate. It s worth your time. Trust me. I won t be offended if when I m on a panel you ignore me. Remember that nothing in this philosophy is doctrine or dogma and the way I formed views on debate was by hearing good reasons about why it should work a certain way. If you change my mind on something I ve written above not only might it win you the debate but I ll appreciate the opportunity for intellectual development. Please feel free to talk to me about my decision. I am happy to disclose. If you want to argue about the decision s merits please do; it will not offend me and it might make you feel better. It won t change my mind but hey whatever.'