A few times now there have been T debates where the aff does not explicitly answer the argument "no truth testing means assume all their claims are false = presumption indpt. of if we lose the interp" and I didn't vote for it, and am not sure if I should have. Now, many things that the aff says implicitly respond to this, I think, and there are plenty of "nuh uh" style answers that are easy to think of and make. (Assuming it's competing interps and not "you are racist for reading T, in-round violence, VI.") But in other areas I am quick to vote on stupid blips and in general I don't like making cross-applications that don't occur to me involuntarily/without straining. So from now on I am voting neg if that happens! You must answer the argument directly, even if it just means explicitly making a cross-application. Be warned! It's right at the top! It's above the email! Just answer it and there will be no issue!

sposito@umich.edu

Above all, tech over truth--to this, there are no realistic exceptions. Fairness in evaluation is most relevant for arguments which are disreputable, and it is my intent to be fair. I will evaluate every argument I have on my flow, and refuse none. It's an argument if I understand it*, which includes most blips but excludes some K things. My opinions about content that follow are the equilibrium provided teams make the best available arguments, so far as I understand them, which means that when the best arguments aren't made, I'm liable to vote exactly opposite of what I've said here.

Although it hurts to say, I am not the best flow, and will likely miss some arguments. I can't be trusted to make the right decision in situations when such a decision hinges on a single, unemphasized argument. To be clear, I will try to do that--and vote remorselessly on, say, dropped one line intrinsicness if I got it--but I may not succeed. I will try my best to be fair, and care about making the right decision, even when it may be inconvenient or for something I find distasteful. I have made the wrong decisions in the past--I am not a relativist, and decisions are right or wrong. Students have a duty to be intelligible, but they do not have a duty to be persuasive beyond the line-by-line. Instead, it is judges who have a responsibility to have to render correct decisions (who is paying versus being paid? Among other asymmetries). Corny as it, numbering 1NC case/2AC offcase arguments, and then adhering to those numbers, helps me a lot and will increase the likelihood I render the most correct decision. Generally I start flowing at the 1NC on case, so I will probably miss ASPEC too....

I am not an educator! In my ideal world, I tap tap tap on my little laptop everything you say so as to correctly record the winner of the competition for which you volunteered... Educator implies a level of partiality and moralism of which I disapprove (ironic I know) and think has run rampant, to everyone's great loss. Similarly, I am not evaluating "who did the better debating"; that's what points are for. Exactly what question I am evaluating in a debate varies across and throughout debates....

I am very sensitive to judge instruction: About when an argument is new, about what evidence I should read or under what circumstances, about how strictly or literally I should take what was said, so on. My default is that I shouldn't read any evidence unless it's a subject of contention and that tags start at 100% risk. (I wish this weren't the standard....)

I enjoy villainy, and things generally hated: scandalous impact turns, process counterplans/neg terrorism, competitive personalities, egregiousness and trickery. My preference is for inserting cards over reading them, until it's like a ton of 1AC cards.

(*= requiring claims to have warrants strictly is impossible, because all warrants are claims which would then require warrants and result in an infinite regress. What is the answer to this argument?)

K affs and framework:

The aff should go for impact turns. I think that K arguments are almost uniformly awful, but will still vote for them. Go for "debate bad means it's good that we destroy it" or "no models--only in-round 'violence'" or whatever else. Moderate-seeming or 'compromise' approaches often do not make sense; K teams are better off when they take aggressive stances. I have an essentially unlimited tolerance for stupid claims, but none for incoherent claims. Cynical and tricky K teams should easily reach competitive parity with top policy teams because of the tactics they have at their disposal, but they must then use those tactics in a strategic way... The ability to do so is usually follows from understanding that the K shouldn't ever win, because it emphasizes exactly why it still does, the fruitful exploits.

There is behavior sufficiently objectionable to sideline competitive concerns. That is easy to establish. The rub is whether or not the object of the dispute (often, reading T) constitutes that behavior. Truthfully, it does not, but policy teams can lose this argument, and do.

DAs do not generally link to K affs, unless the aff catastrophically fails in cross-ex. If they do, then even a negligible risk of the DA clearly outweighs and turns the case. The neg should probably go for T, or maybe a PIK (will the aff successfully execute competition?). High theory Ks can also be good against typical K affs, and mostly now lose, I suspect, for ideological reasons which I will not replicate. I am worse for identity politics than other Ks. I prefer bad faith debating about identity to its moralizing, sincere alternative, and technical debating above all.

On T, the neg should go for fairness. I have a low opinion of the education that debate provides or even could provide, really, even in policy v. policy debates. Clash is not the point of debate--it is strategic to minimize it. I think most of what students pick up in K debates actually harms them (it certainly harms me), and I think that the exclusion of most K arguments would be desirable in and of itself, and wish more teams would argue for that. So, K "research" isn't worth learning about; even if it were, debate wouldn't teach it; to the extent that it does that, gamesplaying still outweighs.... Of course, you need to competently make this argument. But this is where my sympathy sits.

I have never thought skills was any good. I did think clash was good, but don't now. Even good policy teams going for T are liable to lose on "T is a microaggression, racism causes heart attacks, that outweighs the full magnitude of clash." The skills argument that "debaters solve existential risks, small coefficient * a massive value is still massive, outweighs racism," is fine, but as easily defanged as the idea that T is racist at all.

Ks on the neg:

The best Ks are framework arguments that moot the plan. Second best is a concrete (if utopian) alt with framework-type reasons why "do both" is illegitimate. Without some way of overcoming the uniqueness problem, Ks don't make sense and wouldn't outweigh the case if they did. Alternately, the K should be a vehicle for tricks: "If we're right about the incurable racism of the academy, assume that all social science is false and vote neg on presumption" is the kind of thing I would speedily vote on when dropped by the 1AR, perhaps because it was overstretched having to answer several other tricks. Those are the three main 2NRs I am looking to vote for. "Link, impact, alt" is incoherent and factually defeated by the perm double bind. The problem is not me--the emperor has no clothes. To be clear, that excludes "links to the plan," which are bad, non-unique DAs. Even when they are unique, they likely will not outweigh the case without considerable attention paid to framing. Of course, the aff still must minimally extend the perm and non-unique and so on in situations that call for it.

One implication of this is that you really probably don't need more than one link, and it doesn't matter at all if it's specific. Whether or not an argument rejoins the plan does not depend on its novelty to high school debaters.... Similarly, the 2AC really probably does not need much more than "2AC 1 is framework"....

To reiterate, I think the fiat K that moots the case and has the neg go for framework impact turns is very winnable, something on which the aff could reasonably get out-teched. Similar the other 2NRs. I believe debate is a technical game and don't want my feelings in truth about the K to be mistook for my belief that it's not at least sometimes viable. On the other hand, incoherent arguments are extremely unstrategic, because they can be easily beaten.

Obviously, I will only assess the aff's FW interpretation versus the negs. Middle-ground interpretations are fine, but you don't need them to win, and I will won't opt for one unilaterally. A neg interp that allows the aff to weigh the case but reserves uniqueness for links does solve some fairness offense and could be strategic if the K impacts get to extinction (say, security or cap), but I think the aff should probably go for no Ks.

There are some teams and persons who inspired me in the K world--Izak Dunn, James Mollison, Ani Prabhu--who made me believe that more creativity and alternate models were possible and worthwhile. At the moment, it's hard to reconstruct exactly what they were. But I mention them here to curb my cynicism and to break from my narrow prescriptions up until this point. I was a K debater in high school (high theory, Buddhism, anthro).

For policy debaters: If an extinction impact is dropped, it needs no further elaboration.

Topicality:

Reasonability is about the threshold of necessary offense before the the penalty for substance crowdout is outweighed. It is wholly irrelevant of whether or not the aff is popular or easy to debate or if the neg read multiple positions in the 1NC.

It is far easier to win a giant limits DA and 'debatability matters most,' than that precision in the abstract outweighs, and I will vote on that. But my true belief is that there really is a 'best' way to read the resolution in context, and I care about this 'precise' reading immensely. I don't know how pertinent that will be in really-existing debates. I highly, highly recommend Scalia's Reading Law for thinking about topicality.

Plan text in a vacuum is obviously true, and better than all competing standards by a great deal, with the exception of specification in 1AC CX. (It is only better than that by a lot.) Serious question: What would topicality be about, if not the plan? "Planicality" loses swiftly to an analytical PIC and a topic DA. PTIV is not the argument that the text of the plan can be considered in isolation (what could that possibly mean?). It is the argument that the "function" of the plan is determined wholly by its text (as it would mostly be under other standards, if they were ever clearly articulated, without other vague and capacious additions).

Related: Normal means is a factual question. If the aff declares the plan happens in an unrealistic way, the neg should read contravening evidence.

Counterplans & theory:

Update: It is not 1954. Women have entered the workforce, we survived Y2K and this thing called the Internet has swept the world!. Consequently, it does not matter if the 2NC counterplans out of a straight turn. The "C" stands for constructive, even though it is preceded by a "2." Why can't debate be fun?

I like counterplan competition and find it interesting, especially its outer recesses. I agree exactly with Rafael: "I don’t share the sanctimonious distaste that many do for plan inclusive or process counterplans. I won’t think a net benefit is bad just because it’s ‘artificial’ and I don’t think a DA/Case 2NR is necessarily better than a counterplan that steals the aff." You should go for the argument that maximizes your chance of victory, regardless of whether or not it represents research as some people in the community may like. Clearer: It may be difficult to convey how unconcerned I am with a practice in debate being 'educational' or not. Debate is a game played to win, which has the incidental sometimes-benefit of teaching kids some economics and current world affairs, and maybe some philosophy. What I care about is whether or not the counterplan makes the game better or worse, more fun or too unmanageable. Of course, education matters, and I will behave like a normal judge insomuch as I won't go rogue and ignore that part of the debate, and I know it's a pain to adjust the blocks for some ideologue... But I will be quite receptive to teams making the commonsense fact-and-values claims that give me license to mostly ignore pedagogy and focus on the part of the game that matters....

Textual alone is a bad standard, but I think textual and functional or just functional are both OK. Process counterplans I think are key neg generics, certainly on bad topics. In CP debates, may we all drop the politeness that a K being a generic or a functional limit is a desirable state of affairs? I care most about process counterplans being fun, or, on the other side, word games before fun, or at least an idiomatic skill.

I am a little higher on theory than I used to be, because I realized that competition alone cannot elegantly exclude game-breaking counterplans, like those which fiat both the federal government and the states, or private actors. But I am still mostly in the "get good" school, and am fine for the neg on most questions. Then again, theory is a technical matter like any other, and in fact more susceptible to fatal drops, and so it's still probably worth the time.

Conditionality: Seven is clearly worse than two, but even seven isn't so bad. That said, the fashionable new answers to dispo are Russian misinformation meant to undermine Hilary Clinton: "Plank spam" is answered by selectively permuting, and the definition is not vague: An advocacy is dispositional if it may only be kicked once the aff reads a perm or theory against it.

RVIs: Stupid, but don't warrant suspension of the law of tech over truth.

Judgekick: Truthfully good, but no different than everything else in vulnerability to technical debating.

Text vagueness: Concern is overheated. The neg should write texts as vague as they can get away with, but counterplans should probably be policies. Normal means determines what the counterplan does; sufficiently vague ones may factually do something unrelated to neg solvency claims.

DAs:

Again Rafael: "I don’t understand the moral panic about politics, ‘generic’ DAs, or links to fiat. A disadvantage is just some negative consequence the plan brings about. The nature of that consequence is entirely irrelevant except to the extent it affects the substantive magnitude of the impact." And again, you should go for the argument that maximizes your chance of victory.

Zero risk will probably only be achieved through judge instruction, or expired uniqueness, or some sort of plan flaw. But even then, how can I be sure that I'm not only hallucinating it's not 2016? Or that the author of the card didn't accidentally cite the wrong bill? Truthfully, I think this logic is suspect, but the reasons why that are commonly discussed in round are unimpressive.

Case:

See the note on PTIV as well.

What fiat means is open to debate, but starts at durable, good faith passage. Circumvention is a theoretical, normative matter whose viability varies by the topic.

Presumption is the procedure for adjudicating a tie, not deference to the status quo through "least change." Of course, it may behoove the neg to advocate the "least change" standard.

Analytics can defeat many advantages (but probably won't get them to zero).

Soft left affs will likely struggle. The more the "framing" arguments are defense (even if not in the traditional sense), the more successful they will be. Strategies that grant that the plan causes extinction but plead that other issues matter more hardly even need to be answered... judges are licensed to do obvious impact calculus in almost every policy debate...

Impact turns/misc. arguments:

Debate is a voluntary, competitive game centered on disagreement, which means that, of all scholastic activities, it must be the most permissive in speech. I must be a responsible supervisor of high school students, but I also have a responsibility to ensure fairness between competitors, as measured by technical, openminded, and impartial judging to the best of my ability. Relatedly, skill in the art of debate requires the cultivation of mental toughness and the ability to countenance ideas that may be upsetting at first; it requires a philosophical tact and cognitive flexibility to take seriously a superficially ludicrous claim, or four. Debate should not be a place where scoffing is good enough, or where students are taught to run to an adult the moment they encounter something challenging--that is literally everywhere else. It should certainly not be a place where judges abandon logic and allow bad responses to defeat arguments they dislike. Not only would I undermine the fairness of the game were I to intervene against some arguments, I would also compromise the development of habits of mind that are sorely needed nowadays, and which, you'd hope, debate would provide....

If it's not clear: Yes, that includes the death good argument that all human life is worse than nonexistence on balance, so maximizing the number killed is good. It also includes spark and war good and liberal shibboleth bad and aliens and souls and libertarianism and yadda yadda. My views are no longer the in majority within our community which, although discouraging, has the silver lining that I am perfectly comfortable saying that if you would like judges to intervene on your behalf on those issues, you should strike me. You will still have the majority of other judges to choose from; I'd like to judge debates where teams have 'opted in' to the joy of nihilism.

(Also, it is not just that if you cannot beat bad arguments, you deserve to lose. Yes that, but not only. First, some 'bad' arguments are clearly reasonable, e.g. animal wipeout (conditional on utilitarianism). Second, and more important, bad arguments are what debate is for; the truth is self-promoting, and rhetoric, at bottom, can only beautify falsehoods. The point of debate is sophistry; it certainly isn't research, judging on what we churn out (or fail to) annually. Read Gorgias. Anyway, there is great beauty and richness and joy in the philosophical attitude, and the ability to try on different ways of seeing. The prevailing Stalinism makes me feel resentment and despair, or can you tell? It's OK, even good, that kids would end up with some bad ideas. I know that because, right now, they end up with more!)

Nonetheless, there is something gorgeous about teams defeating impact turns, defending the truth. Successfully parrying a 1NC full of garbage would make very pleased to vote aff, if they did, and has historically afforded my best points.

D-rules are not answered by "case outweighs," nor uniqueness, and instead require a defense of some kind of consequentialism or criticisms of deontology/rights. My guess is that on this topic, coercion is often answered very badly, and in that sense underrated....

Other issues:

Whether or not an argument is "generic" or has legitimately no bearing on how much the other team has to respond to it. Similarly, the threshold for answering a bad argument is only low in the sense that there exists a short 2AC that wins---it does not mean that arguments other than those 'true' responses are somehow better. So, even a long 2AC against something "stupid" or "generic" may still be unrecoverably poor... in fact, I have seen such 2ACs... Anything else is unfair (to competitors) and illogical.

I do not think it is advisable to send analytics....

On the flipside, if you only need one or a few arguments to win, why say more? No need to waste speech time, if you're right.

The 2NC is a constructive, and so wholly new case arguments and positions (including counterplans) may be read in it. The 1NR and 1AR do not get unjustified new arguments, although justifications are easy to come by, and include the other team making any new arguments. Similarly for cards. When extending, say, dropped theory, the extensions should also be blippy, to avoid making new arguments to which the aff can respond, or at least careful to avoid them, demarcating which kinds of new arguments may be allowed. When an argument is truthfully new or illegitimate, you do not need to respond to it, other than to point that out.

Dropped arguments that make the other team's thing zero risk cannot be recovered from, assuming the team that made them doesn't own goal themselves. Sometimes there was nothing the rebuttals could've done! Focusing on improving your speeches is often a cope--the 2AC/block is generally more tractable and outcome-determinative....

Don't do the annoying echo thing--if you need your partner to say something, the ideal is that you type it in a Google Doc to which they alt tab when you tell them to. If it's not written down, then I will flow the speaking partner until it becomes excessive, after which I won't flow it at all. The only reason you should repeat them is if it wasn't audible. Obviously, this is bad for your ethos and you should try to avoid it.