Last changed on
Fri November 1, 2019 at 12:24 PM EDT
Congress: I care about what you say way more than how you say it, and to that effect, I care about seeing three things above anything else.
1. Quantified and substantiated evidence. Here's my basic framework of evidence philosophy.
- Good arguments are based on facts.
- Opinions are not facts. Therefore...
- Good arguments are not based on opinions.
Analysis, opinions, and theories are not facts and are therefore not evidence. In reality, there are only two kinds of evidence that prove things.
- Quantification: Numbers and statistics
- Substantiation: Unquantifiable things that are objectively true (laws in effect, historical examples, statements from foreign leaders, etc)
If you see me write (q/s) on a ballot, that means the evidence wasn't properly quantified or substantiated, which means your argument wasn't properly supported.
2. Net offense. I need to know why your side is right, not just why the other side is wrong. Strong refutation is obviously great and usually is the difference between a good debater and a great one, but it can't be the only thing in your speech. At some point during your speech, whether they're new impacts or you're extending old ones to weigh, I need to hear you advocate for benefits on aff and harms on neg.
3. Humanized impacts. When you argue benefits and harms, I need you to show me how the legislation helps or harms people, which means I need to hear you say the word people, or some derivative of it (Americans, workers, families, etc). Great impacts will paint me a picture of the real person the legislation hurts or helps.
Otherwise, I'm open to all sorts of styles and formats of debate.
PF: Quantification is key. Many warrants in PF rely on expert opinions, but opinions are not evidence; I need quantified and/or substantiated proof of the claims you are making. I'm a util judge on face; I will evaluate on the cost-benefit analysis of all things considered if not given a framework to follow, but I am open to evaluating off of a specified framework. Weighing for me is key- a good team should be able to right my RFD for me. Impacts need to be humanized; I need to know why your claims matter to individuals, not just broad concepts like democracy, economy, or hegemony. Any of those broader impacts can be linked back to the individual, but you have to connect back to people or that impact doesn't stand for me. Also, please don't run completely defensive points in constructive- that's what rebuttal is for. If you run progressive arguments on me (K's, theory, etc.), I will drop you. Don't run topicality as a T-shell, just run it as a regular response.
LD: I have limited experience with LD and cannot handle spreading. I can deal with speed within a reasonable degree, but I'm not afraid to say 'clear' if I can't understand you. If I can't understand you, I can't reasonably say you've won the round. If you run progressive arguments on me (K's, theory, etc.), I will drop you. Don't run topicality as a T-shell, just run it as a regular response. Pro should introduce benefits, con should introduce harms.
Extemp: Impacts should come back to the individual; don't just impact to broad topics, tell me why what you're saying is important to people. I want to see quantified and substantiated evidence- not just expert opinions or pure analysis, but proof of what you're saying.
DP: Have fun.
