Steve Mancuso
University of Michigan
15 years of coaching
14 tournaments this year
1. DECISION CALCULUS. I try to understand and evaluate argument
development as the debate progresses. I try to form a general
impression of who is winning arguments as the debate progresses.
Therefore effective (persuasive) communication of evidence and
arguments
will help you win and get high speaker points.
Please read your evidence in a manner that makes it possible for me to
understand its claims and warrants as you read it.
If the 2AR substantially reconfigures the debate, without warning from
the 1AR, I consider that a new argument. I am also very strict when it
comes to evidence in the 2AR. If evidence in the 2AR makes new
arguments internally I consider it "new" since the negative should have
a chance to dispute the internal reasoning.
2. COUNTERPLANS. I do not like conditional arguments. They tend to
erode the quality of analysis and clash in debates.
Dispositionality
where the negative says they can revert to the status quo whenever they
want to seems similar to conditionality to me. Dispositionality where
the negative agrees to defend a straight-turned counterplan seems more
reasonable.
Plan inclusive counterplans, where the CP includes the same agent doing
some or all of the same mandates of the plan, tend to create trivial
distinctions, encourage vague plan wordings and are unfair to the
affirmative on a topic like this where the resolution basically writes
the plan. While I have voted for PICs many times this year, my bias
runs against them.
The negative retains the same actual duration of fiat with a
counterplan as the affirmative enjoys with their plan. Permutations
enjoy the same broad and durable fiat as the affirmative plan and the
negative counterplan. I am not a big fan of international actor
counterplans, especially when the counterplan uses the object of either
the resolution or the affirmative case as the agent.
3. TOPICALITY. I am generally liberal on the issue of topicality,
especially when the plan in question is relatively common or has been
run for a substantial portion of the year. I am not tabula rasa with
respect to topicality standards. I believe that the topic serves two
purposes. First, to provide prior notice so that the negative has a
reasonable chance to be well prepared. Second, it guides discussion
into timely and significant policy issues. You will not be able to
force me to adopt a "best definition" or "most limiting" standard of
evaluation. Plans that have been run commonly for large parts of the
year enjoy strong topicality presumption. I have not voted negative
on
topicality this year.
4. CRITIQUES. I strongly believe that debates should be about
comparisons of policy systems. Comparison is more educational and
tracks more closely real world and personal decision making.
Philosophical or systemic criticisms can operate in a world of
comparison, mainly as either nearly-absolute solvency takeouts or
barely-unique disadvantages. "Fiat" is merely a convention of
imagining
the comparative worlds in existence. I generally find critiques to
suffer from being overly abstract and non-specific.
5. USE OF DISCRIMINATORY LANGUAGE. Everyone, including debaters,
should be sensitive about the use of language that many find offensive.
Bringing these feelings of offense into the open is helpful. I am
uncomfortable, however, when these issues become formalized in a debate
round. There is often dispute about what exactly was said, with no
official recording. Some of this language use is more intentional
than other. Some language is more inherently hateful than others.
For
instance, I once severely docked the top speaker at the NDTs points for
the tag "Ehrlich is a homo." My inclination would be to address minor
"violations" through discussion during or after the debates. More
serious violations will be addressed through speaker point deductions.
It would take a very egregious and clearly intentional language
violation for me to feel comfortable voting on it.
Back