From: Doyle Srader <srader@imap3.asu.edu>
To: Phil Kerpen <pgkst5@imap.pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: If I judge you
Nice service! I have ten minutes to kill, so I'll contribute.
STANCE: Argument critic. My framework for evaluation is which team has
the best argument package. Claims which are nonsensical or are
anti-persuasive are not arguments. "Rubber chicken, voting issue!" is
nonsensical. "Spousal abuse is OK, that's what women are for!" is
anti-persuasive.
TOPICALITY: Two questions: which interpretation of the topic would
produce better debating if applied universally? Does the affirmative fall
under that interpretation? A corollary: If there is no articulable impact
to allowing the allegedy "inferior" interpretation of the topic, then it
isn't really inferior. And it's not some kind of odious, unwelcome whine:
I'll vote on it as soon as look at you. Make sure you have your story
straight.
COUNTERPLANS: Explain why your counterplan is a reason I should vote
against the plan. If you think a permutation isn't legitimate, tell me
why -- sound bites won't even be written down. My sympathies are with
people who say conditionality/dispositionality is bad, and the same with
exclusion counterplans, but I vote for both regularly. Almost all other
issues -- topical or not, plan-inclusive, international fiat, etc. -- I
have no enduring preference.
KRITIKS: If you say "Claim A, because reasons B, C, and D," and follow it
with "Claim A means we should win the debate because of reasons E, F, and
G," then I take that under consideration as an argument. I don't care
whether you backstop all of that with evidence from Heidegger, Simon &
Ostrom, or Iggy Pop. Arguments is arguments is arguments.
STYLE: *PLAY NICELY*. I have the world's shortest fuse when it comes to
in-round rudeness or hostility. Your speaker points will drop to single
digits before you know what hit you. Consider: the image you project when
you behave in an ugly fashion is that you feel threatened, insecure, like
you're losing the debate. If, on the other hand, you're comfortable,
cool, and polite, you seem to be in control, and you project to me the
impression that you're winning. *SPEAK CLEARLY*. Expect a couple of
"clearers," followed by my refusal to assess any claim you make which I
don't understand, even if the other team clears things up in a later
speech. Finally, please, please, *DUMP THE CLICHES*. I don't want to hear
why things are "abusive" -- I want to hear reasons about why they're bad
for debate. Think of new ways to make old arguments and we'll get along
great.
EVIDENCE-READING: This one's a bit special. If you want me to call for a
card after the debate, first give me all the information I'll need to
locate where it was read: name, year, speech, location in the speech
("Srader '97, the third card on contention two in the 1AC ... "). Second,
tell me what I'll discover when I read it (" ... explains the difference
between fast evaporative reclamation, which is what we do, and slow
reverse osmosis, which is what their cards talk about.") I'll read every
card you do this to, and none for which you don't. You have been warned.
|
