Brian Anderson ParadigmLast changed 1/21 7:01P EDT
Anderson Debate Paradigm
4 years NFA-LD.
please include on email chain (email@example.com) or speechdrop
Fine with speed.
Will vote on potential abuse, unless a debater wins that I should not vote on potential abuse.
Condo- I personally think the negative should be allowed as many counterplans as the AFF has adv(s) + 1 (like an agent CP and *number of Advantages* CP(s). I’ll have a very low threshold on condo bad theory if more that are run. To me, at the end of the round only one counterplan should be gone for/squo defended. I don't want to kick an alt for you and vote for the status quo. If the AFF wins that condo is bad then I’d vote aff. If you outtech the AFF on why multiple counterplans are good, then I won’t vote on condo bad. I don’t think “drop the arg not the debater” is persuasive in condo theory debates.
Topicality- I default to competing interpretations, but I’ll vote on reasonability if it’s won. To me, limits is the most important standard, but I think precision or others can be persuasive if the T-interp creates an undue burden for the AFF. The AFF rebuttal would ideally explain why the AFF is a fair parametrization of the resolution and how the AFFs justified are good for x,y,z theoretical reason(s).
SPEC Args- I think most of these are just defensive solvency arguments. However, I’ll still vote on them if the AFF loses the tech, especially if the AFF proves abuse.
RVI's- no thanks.
Disclosure- I would vote on disclosure theory against either negs/affs. If you’ve done goofed and haven’t disclosed, then you should read a counterinterpretation as to why you shouldn’t have to disclose for X,Y,Z reason and then win offense in favor of that interp. i.e. “Debaters don’t have to disclose if the positions they read are on their team’s wiki/until after the tournament is over” or something like that. Still probably an uphill battle, but if the other debater isn’t that good on the disclosure theory collapse then you could still win the round.
I could vote on Framework against Ks/K AFFs, provided the debater actually wins the FW flow (probably more persuaded by the Cap K tho). If the negative is just “They don’t defend the resolution and that’s against the rules,” that's not very persuasive. To me, FW debate is about why limits are good vs why the inclusion of the AFF and the AFFs justified by the AFF’s interp are necessary for X,Y,Z reason.
I’d like to know why the worldview promoted by other debater is wrong (link work), why it’s important to reject/stop that kind of thinking (impact work), and how the alternative in some way resolves that worldview.
I’m interested in the extent to which the CP solves the AFF and if an accompanying DA/other source of offense is a bigger deal than any potential solvency deficits/turns on the counterplan.
PTX-Not super persuaded by “my card is from the next day” arguments on uniqueness though. I find warrant comparison between the cards on why X,Y,Z political thing will/will not happen to be more persuasive than spamming three UNQ/nonunq cards.
Impact Turns: They often seem strategic to me.