HANSON Director of Forensics
Whitman College
hansonjb@whitman.edu
May 10, 1998
YEARS JUDGING DEBATE--18 YEARS (CEDA--11; NDT—5; PARLI--4; HS--15)
I have not judged HS debates since this past summer but I did edit 4 handbooks on the renewable energy topic, worked at 2 HS debate institutes, and lectured at 2 HS debate seminars.
POLICY JUDGING PHILOSOPHY
I weigh the benefits of the topical parts of the affirmative proposal or framework versus those of the negative position or framework.
ARGUING DURING THE DEBATE
WEIGH --Please weigh the links and impacts. Explain why your advantage or disadvantage is more likely, more realistic, happens sooner, subsumes your opponent’s arguments, etc. This is especially importan
t in the 2NR and 2AR.
REREAD LINES IN EVIDENCE--Reread lines in both your and your opponent’s evidence--don’t paraphrase and don’t tell me to "read the card at the end of the round."
COMPARE EVIDENCE--State why the point your evidence makes is not defeated by the points in your opponent's evidence. Show your evidence has a specific scenario not accounted for by your opponent's argument, your evidence reflects a newer situati
on, your evidence undercuts an assumption in your opponent's argument, etc.
NO TAGLINE DEBATING--If all you say is "We solve" or "The B1 takes this out," or "Extend Jones," I will give your argument little weight. You need to explain why--for example, say, "We solve because as our A3 Simon evidence says, OTEC provides e
nergy," or "The B1 argument that troops cleanup environmental problems shows that we will not cause an environmental catastrophe."
CLEAR, PERSUASIVE SPEAKING. I want thesis statements before each position. Use clear, concise labels/tags for your arguments. I want you to read your evidence clearly and persuasively. If I cannot understand you, I will tell you ei
ther by contorting my face or out loud I will say "I cannot understand you."
TAG TEAMING--Okay, but if one partner says very little during cross-examination that will hurt his or her speaker points and reduce your strength as a team.
CROSS-EXAMINATION--I love good series of questions that 1) expose holes in your opponent's knowledge and positions and 2) setup positions you will run and 3) compare your position to your opponent.
OLD THEORY PROCEDURALS
I rarely, if ever vote for Hasty Generalization, Whole Resolution, Justification, "Intrinsic" arguments about affirmative harms, But/for arguments, Criteria is flawed, Reverse voters on Topicality, Pres
umption, etc.
I DISLIKE (AS IN, I MAY DOCK POINTS)
Arguments which advocate purposely or actively killing thousands of people, Rudeness, "We are killing them" intros, and "They are stupid" comments. I also do not like swearing in a debate round. I reall
y dislike personal attacks on your opponents and carried too far could be the cause of a loss.
SPEED
If you are going to go faster than 2/3 to 3/4 speed, I am unable to follow the details of your arguments. I won't dock you but it is imperative that you have clear, slow thesis statements in at least
the 2NR and 2AR for any position you want to win--or I may not get it at all. Also, I will just read cards at the end of the debate and put it together as I see it.
KRITIKS
I am willing to vote on kritiks assuming that the negative shows 1) the affirmative advocacy specifically links to the kritik; 2) the kritik truly does "trump" or outweigh the affirmative advocacy. I am
rarely persuaded by claims that the kritik takes out the affirmative specific solvency, that it just is "a priori," etc. You need to explain and make good arguments why. Otherwise, I default back to standard policy making and just weigh.
WINNING TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS
While I will vote for any reasonable affirmative interpretation, I will also vote for a reasonable negative topicality argument that proves that 1) the affirmative definitely violates a phrase/word in t
he topic and 2) that there is no reasonable interpretation that would make the affirmative topical. If the affirmative has an interpretation, you will need to show it is a bad interpretation that causes a serious consequence--like substantially expanding
the research burden on the negative/making too many cases topical, making the topic non-sensible, etc. "Imprecise" or "Non-expert" will not suffice. If the negative does not prove these thi
ngs, I doubt I will vote on it.
EXCLUSION COUNTERPLANS
While I am not predisposed in favor of exclusion counterplans, I do think they are a good, defensible strategy. Counterplans that exclude a part of the mandates of the plan are usually on good ground. C
ounterplans that exclude part of the funding, enforcement, or some other aspect of the plan that isn't a requirement of the topic are tougher for negatives defend. Counterplans that add to or modify or condition mandates of the plan (Plan-inclusive counte
rplans) are also tougher for negatives to defend. The affirmative can try to argue that topical counterplans are not legitimate but that is rarely persuasive to me. I am more likely to be persuaded that exclusion counterplans intrude on affirmative ground
and that the negative just gets to run disads against parts of the plan that they don't like rather than also get to capture the rest of the plan as their own.
REVERSE VOTERS/CONDITIONALITY
While I prefer consistent positions, think contradictions make a team look bad and I vote on doubleturns; I rarely vote on issues like "conditionality is bad" or "topicality is a reverse voter." I will
do so only if a team proves that the procedural violation severely damages or inherently risks severe damage to their ability to debate in this round. So, if you want to go for this, explain what specific arguments and strategies that your opponent unfair
ly prevented you from running. Be sure to state why it is unfair and what serious consequences it has for your debating.
|
