Ken Strange Dartmouth College
Director of Forensics 26th year coaching
9 tournaments/about 50 rounds
All of the following are personal preferences/biases, but I'll listen to anything.
1. I see debate as a choice between the policy advocated by the affirmative and the policy
advocated by the negative. Based on the debate, I vote for the policy or course of action
which seems better. Fiat mean nothing more than I will ignore the question of whether
either of these two policies actually will be adopted; I do not pretend that anything is
actually done. My bias is against conditionality in either the affirmative or the negative
policies, but I don't think I've voted aff on the conditionality of a counterplan in a
decade.
2. I think topicality is best evaluated by a combination of definitional basis -- a card
defining the term-- and reasonable limits on the number of potential cases.
3. Practically the only limit on counterplans, from my perspective, is that they be
competitive. Topical counterplans, plan inclusive counterplans, etc. are fine, as long as
there is a reason to reject the affirmative and vote for the counterplan. The affirmative
can avoid/make not competitive many potential counterplans by taking the position that the
plan would be done in the existing manner and that changing that manner would not be
competitive. The current manner must be defended, however, against DAs in the absence of a
counterplan. My bias is against "textual" competition and toward an evaluation
of what the policies do. My bias on sanction exception CPs is that the exception must be a
discrete existing sanction, rather than, for example, a product which is covered but not
specified in broad sanctions. Permutations must be mechanical or logical combinations of
the entire affirmative plan and parts of the counterplan. I think intrinsic perms are
illegitimate; these are perms which subtract from the plan or add elements not in either
the plan or counterplan.
4. Kritiks/critiques are fine as long as the impact of the argument in the round is
explained. I need a clear reason why the argument is a reason to vote against the
affirmative or for the negative. For example, arguments which merely raise doubts about
affirmative solvency are unlikely to win debates absent some other reason that the
affirmative policy is bad. Also, I tend to see many kritiks as permutable; it often seems
that we should both, do the best we can now to solve a compelling problem and rethink our
perspective. Thus, the kritik should include reasons why acting before rethinking is bad.
5. Probably the most important thing for debaters to know is that my decision is
influenced much more by explanation and reasons than by evidence. Of course, factual and
authoritative support is often necessary as a basis for a claim, but in most debates at
this level both sides are likely to fulfill those requirements. Thus, debates are more
likely to be resolved on the basis of who tells a better story -- who constructs a reality
that makes more sense to me. If the debaters do not do this, I read the cards and try to
resolve issues by constructing reality for myself. I promise you that this is not what you
want to happen. SO, SPEAK CLEARLY, INCLUDE REASONS IN YOUR LABELS, EXPLAIN YOUR ARGUMENTS,
AND RESOLVE ARGUMENTS BY EXPLAINING WHY YOUR CLAIM SHOULD BE THE ONE TO BE BELIEVED. A
helpful hint in this regard: 2NR and 2AR are more likely to do a better job of resolving
and explaining if they go line by line of the previous speech on the arguments they are
going for, rather than just elaborating on their own arguments. That is, the pattern of
these rebuttals should be "off our argument X, they say Y, but," followed by an
explanation of why "Y" is untrue, unimportant, or irrelevant and why
"X" is true, important, and relevant.
6. I think my position on evidence challenges is different from most, so I'll try to
explain it briefly. Challenged evidence which is proven with the original to be falsified
or out of context will result in a loss and zero points to the offenders. Here's where my
view tends to differ: I do not think I should vote against debaters who challenge evidence
which I decide is not out of context. That is because I do not see the challenge as an
ethical or personal matter (and the challengers should not make it ethical or personal).
Debaters use lots of evidence they did not cut themselves; so they cannot be blamed
ethically or personally for evidence problems. But for debate to function, offenders must
still be held responsible and accountable for the evidence they use.
7. I think CX could be used more effectively in most debates, especially to clarify
arguments and get commitments. CX answers are usually binding (e.g. what the plan does),
but are relevant only as they are used to make arguments in speeches. I try to take notes
on CX regarding matters like what the plan and counterplan actually do. Tag team CX is not
preferred, but acceptable, especially when it makes things clearer for the rest of the
debate.