Chris Lotz

Trinity University/Baylor Law School

Approximately 60 rounds judged on the rogue states topic

Topicality:

Topicality is always a voting issue, never a reverse voter. For the negative to win, they must proffer a viable interpretation of the resolution that is exclusive of the affirmative and is superior to any and all counterinterpretations. Conversely, for the affirmative to win, they must either meet the negative interpretation and/or defend a counterinterpretation that is preferable to the negative’s. It is insufficient and imprudent for the affirmative merely to whine about the negative’s interpretation without providing one of their own or demonstrating that the plan meets the negative’s - defense may win football games, but offense wins debates. Negative teams may have a difficult time resurrecting topicality later in the debate if it appears to be a clear time suck in the 1NC. Smart 2AC’s should make good, clear analytical arguments, as opposed to curt, indecipherable, or meaningless ones. Of course, given the absence of good limiting words in this year’s resolution, topicality debates are rare, but if the affirmative is non-topical, the negative should not be reluctant to throw down the gauntlet.

Counterplans:

I am reasonably flexible about counterplans. The implications of topicality, conditionality, and the like are all debatable, and I welcome a good theory debate. I think compelling arguments exist about the illegitimate and abusive nature of certain counterplans (e.g. those that are conditional/dispositional, exclusionary/inclusionary, or involving international fiat), but the affirmative is advised to invest a substantial amount of time in developing these objections if they are designed to mature as round-winners. Permutations should be clearly articulated ("Do both" is not a viable perm as far as I am concerned because it is too vague and underdeveloped), and it is prudent to debate their nature (Advocacy or test?). I have little or no tolerance for utopian counterplans (e.g. anarchy, socialism, world government, etc.). Moreover, I am troubled by mindless grouping of theory arguments, where the two sides’ arguments are like ships passing in the night. Finally, I am not fond of painfully abbreviated counterplans where the 1NC shell lacks the requisite supporting solvency evidence and the text is shorter than MiniMe.

Kritiks and other non-policy arguments:

There are two main hurdles that kritik artists will have to overcome to secure my ballot. First, I am extremely skeptical of the negative’s ability to abdicate the imperfections of the status quo absent a counterplan. In a nutshell, this is a problem of the link neither being germane nor unique. Second, almost invariably the negative’s alternative is dubious - if rethinking (or the equivalent) is so wonderful as to propel us away from the scourge of the status quo, then it seems likely to overcome the shortcomings of the plan as well (the perm). I am likely to have a very high threshold with respect to other novel argument forms as well. Narratives may be nice, but have very little value in a policymaking venture. While personal horror stories, when germane, may provide anecdotal evidence of harms in a particular country, an abdication of topical advocacy by the affirmative is not advisable.

Other random musings: